IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04..4..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. No. 21386 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 25838 of 2004 1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department Fort St. George Chennai 9 2. The Director of Rural Development Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai 3. The District Collector Nagapattinam ... Petitioners -vs- 1. R. Govindasamy 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai 104 ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Tribunal pertaining to the order dated 22.8.2003 passed in O.A. No. 2802 of 2003 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP For Respondent 1 : Mr. K.S. Thennan ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K. CHANDRU, J.)
Heard the arguments of Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Thennan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records.
2. The first respondent had joined the second petitioner Department as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1968 and after getting several promotions, he became a Joint Director of Rural Development Department. In the normal course of service, he was to have retired on reaching the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.5.1997. He was given a charge-memo on 09.5.1997. The charges levelled against him, were as a result of audit objections raised when he was working as a Block Development Officer in the St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union and Kancheepuram Panchayat Union between the years 1981 and 1988. He filed an Original Application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the charge-memo was given to him just two days prior to his retirement and that too, after 11 years after the alleged incident and directed completion of the proceedings. Subsequently, in the enquiry held, it was found that the first respondent had caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.16,120/-. He was also imposed with the punishment of deduction of Rs.50/- from his monthly pension for a period of six months together with recovery of the amount. The first respondent did not challenge the punishment and the recovery order made against him. He only claimed that since the terminal benefits were disbursed to him only in July 2003, he prayed for interest on the delayed payment of his terminal benefits.
3. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent referred to G.O. Ms. No. 247 RDLA Department dated 20.4.1989 wherein instructions have been given to the Departmental officials with reference to recovery of loss as per audit objections at the time of retirement. It was stated in the said G.O. that the Department can withhold 25% of the DCRG payable and release the balance amount. Therefore, he argued for the alleged loss of Rs. 16,120/- + Rs. 300 as penalty which was deducted from his pension, the petitioner Government need not have withheld the entire terminal benefits thereby making him to suffer for over six years without any payment. The Tribunal found that since the petitioners have not followed their own G.O. and had not released the terminal benefits at the time of retirement, it directed the petitioner State to pay 9% interest on 75% DCRG and for the delayed payment of other terminal benefits. It also held that the interest should be calculated from 01.10.1997. It is against this order, the petitioner State has filed the present writ petition and had also obtained an interim stay on 27.7.2004.
4. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that there is no rule providing for interest with reference to the delayed payment of pension. It must be noted that the first respondent was faced with a disciplinary action and therefore, ordering interest on the delayed payment would amount to a bonus on his misconduct. He also drew the attention of this Court that the first respondent did not challenge the punishment order given to him and it became final.
5. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader. Every action of the State must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by its servants. In the present case, the Tribunal itself had referred to the Government Order wherein certain guidelines have been given for withholding a portion of the DCRG and for the release of the balance amounts pending the outcome of the disciplinary action.
6. The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 itself specifically provides for interest on the delayed payment of DCRG. Even in the absence of Rules, when there is an inordinate delay in the payment of pension and when the State has no satisfactory explanation for such a delay, this Court has power under Article 226 of the Constitution to award interest even on delayed pension based on Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. This position of law has been clarified in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana [2008 AIR SCW 689]. The relevant passage found in paragraph 11 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted:
Para 11: “…. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of ‘bounty’ is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof.”
[Emphasis added] 7. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition filed by the State. Hence, the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. The stay granted by this Court will stand vacated and Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. The order of the Tribunal shall be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. gri