D.P. Selvaraj vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. K.Thennan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S.Anitha, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was serving as Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Coimbatore, at the time of his retirement, on 31.12.1995, on his attaining the age of superannuation. He was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him, in view of G.O.(2D) No. 51, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts I), dated 28.12.1995. The disciplinary action had been initiated based on certain charges framed against the petitioner for alleged irregularities noticed by the special audit party of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, while the petitioner was acting as Superintendent Grade II at the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Coimbatore.

The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charges. Even though an enquiry had been conducted, belatedly, it was finally found that the charges against the petitioner had not been proved. Thereafter, on receipt of the final orders, the Treasury Office, Coimbatore, by a letter Ref.Rc.27040/99/A2, dated 31.5.1999, had forwarded the proposals for payment of the pension and other retiral benefits due to the petitioner to the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. Based on the said proposals, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, had passed orders for the payment of pension and other retiral benefits by a letter, dated 15.7.1999. Thus, there has been a delay of nearly 31/2 years in the disbursement of the retiral benefits to the petitioner and therefore, he is entitled to receive the interest on the belated payment of retiral benefits for the period, from 1.1.1996 to 14.7.1999, at the rate of 18% per annum.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

It is noted that in similar circumstances the Supreme Court had issued certain directions for the payment of interest on the belated payment of retiral benefits. The decisions are as follows:

i) Vijay L.Mehrotra v. State of U.P and Ors. 2000(2) SLR 686.

ii) Gorakhpur University and Others Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Others, and

iii) Rakesh Kumar Jain and Anr. v. State of U.P and Anr. 2007(2) MLJ 663 (SC).

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court is pleased to direct the respondent to pay the interest to the petitioner, on the belated payment of the arrears of the retiral benefits due to him, at the rate of 12%, calculated from the date when the amounts, became due till the date of its actual payment.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not refuted the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court finds that nothing has been shown by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to deny the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the delay in payment of the arrears of the retiral benefits is due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of the retiral benefits, due to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date when the amounts fell due till the date of its actual payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.