IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice T.RAJA W.P.No. 47382 of 2006 G.Govindarajan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. 3.The Principal Accountant General, A & E Tamil Nadu, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3004 of 2000 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the belated payment of retirement benefits namely a) Gratuity b) Commuted Pension c)Leave Salary from 31.01.1998 to the date of payment (11.08.1999 and 02.11.1999) and grant such other reliefs. For Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Srinivasan for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Vijayashankar for R3. O R D E R
On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.3004 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.47382 of 2006.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the belated payment of retirement benefits namely Gratuity, Commuted Pension, Leave Salary from 31.01.1998 to the date of payment and grant such other reliefs.
3. The petitioner has joined as Police Constable in the year 1960. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1972. Again, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1980 and after the completion of 15 years of service, he was further promoted as Inspector of Police on 22.12.1995. Thereafter, he was superannuated on 31.01.1998. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has received 95 rewards which shows his unblemished devotional service to the Department.
4. After his retirement, the petitioner was not able to get his pension about 18 months. As per the Pension Rules, when a government servant retired from service, the retirement benefits will be given within a period of 30 days from the date of his retirement. Even though the petitioner retired on 31.01.1998, his DGRC, Commuted pension, PF and leave salary have not been settled in time. Therefore, the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents. However, he was paid commuted pension to the tune of Rs.45,000/- on 11.08.1999, besides leave salary of Rs.36,000/- was paid on the same day. Further, a sum of Rs.46,860/- from gratuity was also drawn and paid on 02.11.1999. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that the delay in disbursement of the retirement benefits to the petitioner is attributed to inaction shown by the respondents and not properly processing the pension papers and not adhering to the provisions of the Pension Rules enabling the petitioner to receive the retirement benefits within a period of 30 days from the date of his retirement. On the basis, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents for payment of interest @ 18% per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was suspended during the period from 27.05.1982 to 02.01.1984 and subsequently, the said suspension period was revoked and reinstated into service only on 22.12.1984. In view of the suspension and revocation, the claim of the pension proposals could not be properly arranged though the petitioner co-operated for the enquiry. As soon as the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.1998, the pension proposals were sent to the Accountant General on 19.02.1998 itself after fixing the pay 1981 onwards in the old scale of pay. But, there were lot of incorrect entries. In view of the proposals sent by the Department was returned by the Accountant General in June 1998 and again in March 1999 due to non availability of certain entries. Such entries were got from the other unit Officers where he was previously serving. Thus, the delay has occurred beyond the control of the department. Therefore, there was no justification in his claim for payment of interest for the delayed payment of gratuity in the Government Machinery. On the basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that when a government servant retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, as per Rule 51(1) of the Pension Rules, the respondents are duty bound to disburse the retirement benefits as well as the pension within a period of 30 days from the date of his retirement. In the meanwhile, as per Rule 51(1), it is the duty cast upon the department in which the petitioner was working to keep the pension proposals and the papers are ready for despatch to the concerned department six months prior from the date of retirement.
7. Rule 51(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, may be usually referred to as extracted hereunder:
51: Preparation of list of Government servant’s due for retirement-(1) Every Head of the Department shall have a list prepared every six months that is, on the 1st January and the 1st July each year of all (self drawing and non-self drawing Government servants) who are due to retire within the next 24 to 30 months of that date.”
8. As per Rule 51(1), every Head of the Department will have a list prepared every six months i.e, on the 1st January and the 1st July each year of all (self drawing and non-self drawing government servants) who are due to retire within the next 24 to 30 months of that date. Rule 51(2) states that a copy of every list referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be supplied to the Audit Officer concerned not later than the 31st January or the 31st July as the case may be, of that year. Rule 51(3) states that in the case of a Government servant retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of the Department shall promptly inform the Audit Officer as soon as the impending retirement become known to him. A mere reading of Rule 51(1) clearly shows that in the case of the petitioner, the second respondent has not properly complied with the above said Rule.
9. A communication issued by the third respondent/Principal Accountant General marked by their counsel states that the pension proposals after rectifying the discrepancies and certain entries regulating the pay of the petitioner, was received by the third respondent in March 1999 and the pensionary benefits were authorised to him in PPO No.C.12534/POL in July 1999 which shows that the third respondent has not caused any delay in the authorisation of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Moreover, the Government have also clarified in letter No.103384/Pension/87-2, dated 07.09.1987 that for the payment of interest on the delayed payment of DCRG, no specific authorisation from the Accountant General is necessary and on the strength of sanction accorded by the Administrative Departments of Secretariat interest may be worked out by the department and a bill presented to the concerned Treasury for the drawal and payment of interest to the pensioners.
10. On a perusal of the records, the petitioner even after his retirement for about 18 months was denied the retirement benefits. In view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be resisted. Accordingly, while considering the reason assigned by the petitioner as well as the way in which the case papers were sent belatedly, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, directs the second respondent to pay interest @ 10% per annum which is the authorised interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits and the same should be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
16.08.2010 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mps T. RAJA,J., mps To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. 3.The Principal Accountant General, A & E Tamil Nadu, Chennai. W.P.No. 47382 of 2006 16.08.2010