ORDER
E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. The writ petitioner being a senior citizen, this writ petition was ordered to be taken out of turn. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full pension treating the petitioner as a selection grade professor and connected benefits with compound interest at bank rate and a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs by way of damages to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. K. Chairman Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. V. Velumani, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. T. Ravikumar, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and Mr. C. Chinnasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
3. Pending the writ petition, by order dated 14.12.1999, this court directed the second respondent to disburse commuted value of pension as ordered by him by proceedings dated 2.8.1998 within four weeks from 14.12.1999. Accordingly the commuted value of the pension has already been paid to the writ petitioner. Hence a part of the relief has become infructuous.
4. The petitioner, a retired Professor in the 4th respondent private college, claims that he is entitled to monthly pension and other terminal benefits according to the pension rules. The petitioner claims that he has put in 30 years 1 month and 28 days of service. The 4th respondent is a minority college. The petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 21.2.1987 and he was permitted to retire on 28.2.1987. The petitioner requested that he may be continued till the end of the academic year while producing a medical certificate of fitness. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to continue up to 60 years and his application submitted in this respect was kept pending by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is responsible for forwarding the pension proposals well in advance so that the sanctioning authority will sanction the same on the date of the retirement. The 4th respondent forwarded the papers only 5.2.1987 just 15 days before the date of superannuation and even the submission of papers were defective.
5. The petitioner’s claim for pension and gratuity was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the second respondent clearing all dues including that of library and requested for earlier settlement of pension. It is alleged that the 4th respondent maliciously by order dated 28.3.1987 dismissed the petitioner from service on certain trumped up charges, such as writing anonymous letters against the institution. The 4th respondent also initiated disciplinary action by order dated 28.3.1987 and ultimately dismissed the petitioner. The 4th respondent also lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner had failed to return library books worth Rs. 1500/=. It is stated that the Police after investigation reported that the complaint is false. The 4th respondent caused the librarian of the College to file a private complaint before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate charging the petitioner with theft of college Library books and misappropriation and for criminal breach of trust. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted honourably by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.6.1992. The 4th respondent preferred an appeal against the acquittal which also stood dismissed.
6. It is stated that the 4th respondent also instituted a defamation suit against the petitioner claiming Rs. 25,000/= as damages as according to the 4th respondent-college, the petitioner has defamed the college by sending false complaints to the respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the University and to the Bishop of Madras. It is admitted that subsequently the suit has been decreed in favour of the 4th respondent college. AS against the order of dismissal the petitioner moved the first respondent by way of appeal. But the appeal was returned as not maintainable. The first respondent by order dated 20th March, 1990 took the view that the dismissal of the petitioner after superannuation is illegal and void and that he is entitled for payment of pension and other terminal benefits.
7. After the said direction, on 29.3.1990 the second respondent forwarded the pension proposal to the third respondent with a certificate issued by the third respondent certifying that the dismissal after the superannuation is invalid and therefore on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner is eligible for sanction of pension and gratuity. The second respondent sanctioned Rs. 1047/= as monthly pension and Rs. 38,475 towards gratuity and Rs. 770/= as family pension. But the said order was not implemented. But the third respondent reduced the monthly pension from Rs. 1047/= to Rs. 733/= by order dated 29.3.1990 as details were not furnished about the petitioner’s earlier service in Thyagaraja College of Preceptors, Madurai rendered between 13.8.1962 to 15.6.1964. There is no justification or warrant to reduce the pension already sanctioned which is violative of Rule 58(3)(B).
8. It is alleged that the second respondent had not forwarded the pension proposal to the third respondent nine months before the date of retirement, as a result of which there was delay in sanction of pension. According to the pension rules, the petitioner is entitled for payment of pension. When the first respondent has already held that the dismissal order dated 28.3.1987 is illegal and void consequently it follows that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary and terminal benefits.
9. After thirteen years, on 29.3.1990 the petitioner was paid Rs. 45008/= covering pension, D.A., Additional D.A. and Medical Allowance for the period from 1.13.1987 to 31.8.1990 and fixing the petitioner’s monthly pension at Rs. 733/=. Despite such delay, no interest has been paid to the petitioner. The second respondent on 10.2.1993 forwarded revised pension proposal to the third respondent while indicating that the period of service from 24.12.1978 to 30.12.1978 is yet to be regularised and no pay has been paid to that period.
10. It is alleged that the 4th respondent acted arbitrarily in suspending the petitioner and delaying the submission of pension proposal. Very many allegations have been set out against the 4th respondent by the petitioner alleging that the 4th respondent always delayed and attempted to defeat the petitioner’s right to pension and terminal benefits. On the earlier occasion there was an order of suspension pending enquiry in June 1981, but subsequently at the intervention of the University and Colleges Employees Union, the petitioner was reinstated. Thereafter once again certain charges were trumped up and fabricated.
11. It is also alleged that the period of suspension has not been reported to the Director of College Education and how the said period has also been regularised has not been entered in the service register or staff accounts register of the College while the petitioner was in service. Though the petitioner had not availed any E.L. while in service and the period of suspension was treated as spent on E.L. and a cheque for Rs. 3917/= was sent for full settlement of E.L. encashment. This is being pointed out as an illegality and motivated.
12. The pension order was revised and the pension was refixed at Rs. 817 with effect from 14.12.1989 and subsequently at Rs. 1,358/= w.e.f. 1.3.1987 and to Rs. 1,555 on the revised UGC scale of pay with effect from 14.12.1987. A sum of Rs. 83815/= was paid on 10.5.1993 towards pension arrears and no interest has been awarded for the belated payment. The difference in salary was not also calculated and was paid. The petitioner should have been advanced to selection grade on his completing 28 years of service as Assistant Professor. But an order has been passed only on 14.5.1992. The 4th respondent has been consistently disobeying the orders of the Government and orders of the other respondents. It is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs. 2085 per month as pension besides allowances, in all aggregating to Rs. 4,440/=. The DCRG payable was sanctioned only on 10.2.1993 and it was paid in two instalments on 18.11.1992 and 9.6.1993. The petitioner is entitled to claim interest for the belated payment of Rs. 50,000/= towards DCRG.
13. The petitioner is entitled to commute 1/3rd of his pension. His application was kept pending by the 4th respnoent without forwarding the same to the second respondent with pension papers. The petitioner was called upon to appear before the Medical Board after five years of retirement and for no obvious reasons his request for commutation of pension has been turned down as if the petitioner is medically unfit. The petitioner was made to run from pillar to post even for commutation and there has been inordinate delay in payment of salary arrears and pension arrears as well as DCRG. The petitioner has been harassed by the 4th respondent college and the petitioner has to suffer agony and tension at his old age besides he suffered a heart attack. Hence the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a compensation and a direction to pay interest for the belated settlement of pension and other terminal benefits. Even the commutation of pension though sanctioned has not been disbursed till this court issued an order while admitting the writ petition.
14. According to the second respondent the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent Training College a minority institution receiving grant. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.1987 and was eligible for reemployment till the end of the academic year 1986-87. Permission for reemployment could not be granted by the second respondent as the 4th respondent college has not submitted proposal for reemployment nor it has recommended for reemployment in time. The 4th respondent dismissed the petitioner on 28.3.1987 after superannuation by initiating disciplinary action which order of dismissal is illegal and unjustifiable. The then Director of Collegiate Education issued orders holding that the termination of the petitioner after superannuation is illegal ;and unjust and directed the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to issue a certificate that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner after superannuation is invalid and he is eligible for sanction of pension and DCRG.
15. After the said order of the Director, pension proposals were resubmitted to the Accountant General. The Accountant General authorised payment of pension by reckoning service of the petitioner from 13.7.1965. Thereafter after getting counter signature of the Thiagaraja college, Madurai the pension was refixed as per the University Grants Commission scale. On the revised pension proposal submitted the Account General on 26.3.1993 sanctioned pension. The 4th respondent has not furnished service particulars despite repeated reminders. The 4th respondent on 20th January 1998 recommended that the petitioner be advanced to selection grade under Career Advancement Scheme and only on 22.3.1998 orders were passed in this respect. Once again on request the pension proposal was submitted and it was sanctioned. According to the respondents 1 and 2 there has been no latches on their part in submitting the proposal or sanctioning of pension.
16. On receipt of pension proposal from the 4th respondent college the the pension proposals were forwarded on 7.1.1988 which was returned by the third respondent for clarification and only on 9.5.1990 pension was sanctioned. As regards the litigation between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, it is stated that the Metropolitan Magistrate had honourably acquitted the petitioner on 24.6.1992. Whatever the grievance the petitioner has is as against the 4th respondent College. The Government by G.O. No. 393, dated 20.3.1990 informed the petitioner that his dismissal after the date of superannuation is illegal and he is entitled for retirement benefits as per the Rules and Regulations. Thereafter pension proposals were submitted by the second respondent. The earlier service rendered in Thyagaraja College of Madurai was not included as it was not certified and it was pending clarification. Thereafter after getting necessary certificate the pension was revised once again.
17. There is no delay on the part of the first respondent or the second respondent in sanctioning pension or disbursing the pension or terminal benefits. It is the 4th respondent college who has delayed the matter and the 4th respondent College by reply dated 9.6.1998 has just reported that disciplinary action was pending against the petitioner, but no final orders were issued. The Government issued G.O. 393, Education, dated 20th March 1990 holding that the petitioner cannot be proceeded and the order of dismissal is illegal. As regards the suspension it is for the 4th respondent who is the competent authority as it is a minority institution. It is the Accountant General who has pointed out that the period of suspension has not been regularised. The petitioner is not entitled for payment of interest as against respondents 1 to 3.
18. Taking a lenient view the Government has ordered disbursement of pension after holding that the dismissal of the petitioner is illegal, besides pointed out that the petitioner is entitled for selection grade with effect from 1.1.1986. But the management has recommended for selection grade only in January 1998 under Career Advancement Scheme which was accepted and pay fixation has been approved and sanctioned besides further increments and revised proposal for pension has been sent to Accountant General. The demand of the petitioner including DCRG has been sanctioned and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
19. The writ petitioner has filed a reply to the counter filed by the second respondent.
20. The 4th respondent has denied all the allegations or averments made against it pointing out that the petitioner is guilty of various omissions and commissions and he has been rightly dealt with for his specific activities. The petitioner was permitted to continue in service till 31.5.1987 by the management of the college. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.3.1987 as he was guilty of various charges found by the enquiry officer. The 4th respondent has referred to the complaints with respect to return of 71 library books which is of civil nature. In the defamation suit filed by the 4th respondent a decree has been passed and execution petition is pending. The order of dismissal was set aside by the first respondent.
21. The fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish information in the form prescribed in the Department of Education for the purpose of forwarding pension proposal and also calculation of pension. But the petitioner furnished information only belatedly and that information was insufficient. The petitioner submitted further details and finally the management obtained requisition for pension from the petitioner on 5.2.1987 and his pension proposal was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education thereafter.
22. The Service Certificate in proof of the petitioner’s service at Thiyagarajar College, Madurai was not available but it has been included in the total service. The petitioner was suspended on 23.12.1978 and he was kept under suspension till 31.12.1978. The order of suspension was challenged before the City Civil Court at Madras in O.S. No. 7923 of 1979 and the same was dismissed. The appeal preferred in A.S. No. 815 of 1985 was also dismissed. An agreement was entered between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the petitioner withdrew the case against the 4th respondent management. But the petitioner was reinstated in service not unconditionally as claimed. The suit for defamation instituted by the petitioner has been decreed awarding a compensation of Rs. 25,000/=. The proposal regarding revised UGC scale was forwarded on 30.7.1992.
23. The 4th respondent was not inclined to recommend the petitioner for advancement to selection grade from senior scale. However in accordance with the Director’s letter dated 15.10.1997 the 4th respondent recommended for advancement of the petitioner to selection grade taking a sympathetic view. The pay was refixed and consequently pension was also revised.
24. The commutation of pension was made by the petitioner only on 14.5.1993 and it was rejected by the Medical Board as unfit on medical grounds and there is no mischief or delay on the part of the 4th respondent as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount as compensation or interest for belated payments or settlement of terminal benefits.
25. Mr. K. Chairman Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admitted the payments as set out in the tabular statement set out hereunder:-
Sl. No. Due date Paid date Particulars Amount
paid Rs.
1 1/3/1987 7/9/1990 Superannuation pension 1st 45,088
payment of arrears in a
lump-sum after a delay of
3 " years with effect from
1.3.1987
2 1/3/1987 10/5/1995 Superannuation pension 2nd 85,815
payment of arrears in a
lump-sum with effect from
1.3.1987
3 1/3/1987 8/3/1999 Superannuation pension 3rd 80,148
payment of arrears in a sump
Sum with effect from 1.3.1987
4 1/3/1987 15.4.1999 Superannuation pension 4th 9,900
payment of arrears in a sump
sum with effect from 1.3.1987
5 1/3/1987 17.12.1992 1st payment of DCRG after a 26,933
delay of 5 " years with effect
from 1.3.1987
6 1/3/1987 13.4.1993 2nd payment of DCRG after a 23,067
delay of 6 years with effect
from 1.3.1987
7 1/3/1987 21.2.2000 1/3rd commuted value of pension 54,570
paid after a delay of 13 years
with effect from 1.3.1987
26. Though the petitioner has made a claim of Rs. 3,25,438/= towards short payment of pension no break up details have been furnished. On the other hand the respondents 2 and 3 have furnished the details as to how the service particulars of the petitioner has been taken into consideration and pension has been fixed and revised from time to time and all arrears have been paid. The various other miscellaneous claims by the petitioner cannot be gone into in this writ petition and it is too late at this stage to examine those miscellaneous claims such as arrears of salary or encashmnt of E.L., imposition of cut of Rs. 500/= for the period of suspension or reduction of salary of Rs. 4250/= and a sum of Rs. 96,000/= towards salary for two years of extension of tenure as Professor, which the petitioner has claimed as if he should have been continued as upto 60 years. These claims cannot be sustained at all and no arguments have been advanced in this respect.
27. Mr. K. Chairman Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting payments made and the commutation ordered, pointed out that there has been considerable delay and the petitioner should be compensated with payment of interest besides the awarding damages against the 4th respondent college. Mr. C. Chinaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent raised those contentions and contended that the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any amount either towards the delay in sanction of pension or towards compensation for damages.
28. On the above, the following points arise for consideration:
(A) Whether there is inordinate delay in sanctioning pension, DCRG or Commutation? If so, which respondent has caused the delay? Whether the delay caused is justifiable or bona fide?
(B) Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest or damages for the belated settlement of pension or other terminal benefits including commutation of pension?
(C.) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to by way of compensation and payment of interest? If so, how much?
The above points could be considered together.
29. On a consideration of materials it is clear that there is no delay on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 and the delay if any is on the part of the 4th respondent who has not cooperated at all times as there was estrangement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. But for the fair stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 the petitioner would not have been paid pension and terminal benefits. Despite such a fair stand the respondent No. 4 has obviously adopted delaying tactics at every stage and put its obstructive spanner in the spokes from the inception for its own reason. In fact the 4th respondent dismissed the petitioner from service when there existed no jural relationship which is illegal and it is the Government which had came to the rescue and issued orders holding that the petitioner has retired from service and the order of dismissal after superannuation is illegal. But for the action taken by the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner might not have got the pension sanctioned or revised from time to time and the delay if any is on the part of the 4th respondent. The fourth respondent with no valid reason but with a calculated view has adopted delaying tactics and resulting in 14 years delay in payment of pension and other terminal benefits.
30. On a perusal of the above facts, it is clear that there has been a difference of opinion between the 4th respondent and the writ petitioner and in fact an order of dismissal has been passed as a result of which there has been considerable delay for fifteen long years either in submitting the proposal for pension or sanction. In fact the 4th respondent has not submitted the proposal and it is the second respondent, who certified the service particulars and submitted proposal for pension which was sanctioned. But for the right action taken by respondents 1 to 3 the petitioner would have been made to suffer throughout the rest of his life and still fighting for lawful settlement of his pension.
31. As regards the advancement to selection grade also there has been a considerable delay on the part of the 4th respondent which has not chosen to advance the petitioner within a reasonable time, but has chosen to pass orders after several years. As a result of this, the petitioner had to suffer and for a considerable period there was delay in payment of pension and other terminal benefits. In fact, period of service was not even regularised. Though the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 28.3.1987, the superannuation pension was paid only on 7.9.1990. So also the arrears on 10.5.95 which fell due on 1.3.1987. DCRG was paid only on 17.12.1992, which should have been paid within a reasonable time from the date of superannuation or at least when the dismissal was set aside. So also the second payment of DCRG. That apart, the commuted value of the pensions has not been paid for a period of 13 long years and only pending the writ petition the commuted value of pension has been paid.
32. It is clear from the facts that all these delays have been caused by the 4th respondent college by adopting an unfair attitude towards the petitioner and delaying tactics. At least after the petitioner leaving the college, on reaching the age of superannuation the fourth respondent could have changed its views, attitude and inimical or hostile treatment towards the petitioner.
33. The 4th respondent at no point of time has extended cooperation in submitting the pension proposal and furnishing requisite particulars. Even after the Government holding that the order of dismissal is invalid and the petitioner is entitled to payment of pension, the 4th respondent has been dragging his feet and delayed the proposal for settlement of terminal benefits as well as pension.
34. But for the cooperation extended by the respondents 1 to 3, the belated payment of pension and DCRG would not have materialised. The delay has been caused by the total noncooperation, arbitrary and hostile attitude of the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also contributed to a certain extent by his attitude and less said is better for either side. The petitioner had to fight a litigation and has to defend himself before the Magistrate on a private complaint given at the instance of the 4th respondent.
35. The 4th respondent as already pointed out has caused delayed at every stage as the petitioner who has been denied of pension and terminal benefits for a considerable period will be entitled to interest for such belated payments. But the delay in sanctioning and disbursement cannot be attributed to respondents 1 to 3, but the delay has been caused by the 4th respondent deliberately has resulted in inordinate delay, apart from the petitioner’s conduct in contributing for the delay. Had the papers been submitted by the petitioner, had not the 4th respondents 1 and 2 forwarded the papers in time, the pension would not have been paid at all. The petitioner cannot claim any compensation or interest from the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner’s claim of pension under the Pension Rules is not correct, but pension is under the Rules and Orders of Pension Scheme framed for staff of non Government Educational Institutions framed by the State Government.
36. Taking into consideration of the entire mater and the admitted fact that there has been considerable delay for fourteen long years in payment of pension, DCRG and for a considerable period the petitioner has not even been paid any amount for his sustenance, this court is of the considered view that it is the 4th respondent who is liable for the claim as well as compensation. The 4th respondent-college has caused much delay and attempted to delay the claims of the petitioner for over 14 years. However, the amount of compensation and interest as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted as this court is of the considered view that this is eminently a fit case where a lump sum of RS. 60,000/= (Sixty Thousand only) is to be awarded against the 4th respondent college towards interest as well as damages for belated payment for the sufferings which the petitioner suffered by the conduct of the 4th respondent-college.
37. Though much could be said against the 4th respondent for its attitude right from the beginning, less said is the better since the 4th respondent is an educational institution. In all fairness, the 4th respondent should have conducted itself in a fitting manner befitting to its reputation as one of the oldest institution in the City. And at least should have adopted a fair stand who had retired from its service.
38. In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition against the respondents 1 to 3, this court directs the 4th respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/= in all towards the delay caused by it in sanction and disbursement of pension and towards damages for the petitioner’s sufferings by the belated payment of pension and deprivation of only source of livelihood. The 4th respondent is granted twelve weeks time to pay the sum of Rs. 60,000/= to the petitioner. The fourth respondent though claims to be a minority institution it receives full grant and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it is an other authority falling under Art. 12. That apart even a minority institution is bound to implement all social welfare and beneficial legislations. The recent Eleven Judges Bench has held that the 4th respondent is bound to enforce all the legislative enactments, Rules and Government Orders. Hence the fourth respondent’s contention to the contra cannot be sustained. If the 4th respondent fails to pay the sum of Rs. 60,000/= as detailed within the time the respondents 1 to 3 shall stop disbursement of all grants and salary to all teachers till the fourth respondent pays off the Sixty Thousand Rupees.
39. It is also brought to the notice of the court that the 4th respondent has already secured a decree towards damages in a civil suit instituted against the petitioner. The 4th respondent is at liberty to adjust the said sum of Rs. 25,000/= and the balance of the amount need be paid. The 4th respondent shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/= to the petitioner in addition to Rs. 60,000/=.
40. Writ Petition is allowed in the above directions. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. The 4th respondent shall be liable to pay Rs. 2,500/= towards cost to the writ petitioner without delay.