IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.No. 37774 of 2003
......
S.Natarajan .... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Building
CHENNAI-600 003.
2.The Zonal Officer
Zone II
Corporation of Chennai
Basin Bridge
Chennai-600 079. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 1st Respondent in Ma.Aa.2/Vu.Na.Aa.2/Na.Ka.No. A1/1746/2003 dated 18.12.2003 and quash the same and consequent to direct the Respondents herein to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the belated payment of retirement benefits including on the 25% of DCRG with effect from 01.08.2000 till the date of settlement of retirement benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Raja
For Respondents : Mr. V. Bharathidasan
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for a limited prayer for grant of interest in settling the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.
2. The petitioner retired as a Sanitary Inspector on 31.7.2000. Prior to his retirement, audit objection was raised on 20.7.2000 stating that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner over aged and the appointment committee should relax the condition. The Corporation processed and sent the file to the Health Department on 24.11.2000 and the same was placed before the Commissioner of Corporation on 23.1.2001. Thereafter, it was considered and approved by the appointment committee on 7.2.2001. Immediately thereafter, on 22.2.2001, 75% of DCRG was paid to the petitioner. The balance 25% of the DCRG was paid on 19.9.2003 after receipt of the ‘no objection’ from the various departments, which came to be issued on 5.6.2003.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after the grant of approval by the appointment committee, 75% of the DCRG was paid and after receipt of ‘ no objection’, within a period of three months, the balance amount of 25% has been paid and therefore, there is no question of payment of interest. Assuming without admitting that there is some delay, it is due to administrative reasons and it is not deliberate or intentional.
4. Insofar as the age relaxation is concerned, the respondent explanation is that it took some time for the department to go into the old records relating to the appointment of the petitioner and thereby, reasonable time was consumed in receiving papers from various departments and processing the same. Therefore, the delay has occurred. As regards the balance amount of 25% of DCRG is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner served in various capacity. His file for release of balance DCRG was circulated to various departments for their approval and therefore, there was some delay. This stand is acceptable. The delay does not appear to be intentional but a bonafide administrative delay. The same has been explained properly. There was no deliberate act on the part of the respondents to withhold the balance DCRG amount. The original file was produced before this Court. The several communications between the department’s clearly show that the file kept moving from place to place. The delay has been reasonably explained. There appears to be no deliberate intention to delay the file and make the payment of DCRG to the petitioner. The primary reason in this case appears to be want of relaxation of the age by the appointment committee for which, the respondents cannot be held responsible. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to grant the relief of payment of interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
ra
To
1.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Building
CHENNAI 600 003
2. The Zonal Officer
Zone II
Corporation of Chennai
Basin Bridge
Chennai 600 079