High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
M. Velayutham
Versus
Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.18273 of 2007 (T) (O.A.No.1541 of 2004)
Decided on : 06-06-2011
Interest - Belated Payment - Tamilnadu Pension Rules - Charges under P.F.A. Rules - DCRG, Commutation Pension - Interest Entitlement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Sanitary Inspector, was issued a charge memo in 1994, retired in 1994, and faced delayed conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner sought interest on belated payment of pension and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the belated payment of DCRG and commutation of pension as per the Tamilnadu Pension Rules and relevant case law.
Issues: The issues involved the delayed conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, entitlement to interest on belated payment, and application of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on belated payment of DCRG and commutation of pension as per the relevant rules and case law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to calculate and disburse the interest for the belated payment of DCRG and commutation of pension and other benefits within a specified period.
1. The petitioner is a retired Sanitary Inspector, Chengalpet Muncipality, Chengalpet. While in service, he was issued with a charge memo dated 21.07.1994 by the Commissioner, Chengalpet Municipality, for certain allegations pertaining to the year 1993. He submitted his explanation to the charges on 25.07.1994. As he was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1994, he was permitted to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he submitted his explanation to the charge memo without any delay on 25.07.1994, the Government called for further explanation only on 20.11.2001, after expiry of seven years from the date of his retirement. He submitted his further explanation on 24.12.2001 and not accepting the same, charges were held as proved and a penalty of cut in pension of Rs.100/- for one year was imposed on 20.05.2002.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the disciplinary proceedings were concluded in the year 2002 by imposing a punishment of cut in pension, DCRG and commutation amount of pension to the tune of Rs.83,900/- was not disbursed till 15.03.2004 and that there was a delay of two years. According to the petitioner, he was no way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and in such circumstances, he is entitled to award of interest on the belated payment of Rs.83,900/-, being the DCRG and commutation of pension for the period from 31.07.1994 to 15.03.2004.
4. Mr.Ravi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest on belated payment for the period stated supra and for the above said contentions, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Ors., Vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair, reported in 1985 (1) SCC 429, R.Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection, Income Tax, reported in JT 1994 (6) SC 354 and the decision of this Court in Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Another Vs. M.Deivasigamani, reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1.
5. Opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition and reiterating the contentions made in the counter affidavit filed by the Director, Local Fund Audit, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 21.07.1994 and as the petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1994, he was permitted to retire pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. He was sanctioned provisional pension vide letter No.R.Dis.No.PV(6)/19392/96, dated 14.05.1996 of the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai. He further submitted that the Government have called for further explanation from the petitioner, and the same was submitted on 24.12.2001. As the charges were held proved, the Government by its letter dated 08.04.2002, called for the petitioner's further explanation against the proposed penalty of cut in pension of Rs.100/- per month, for one year. After considering the petitioner's explanation dated 20.04.2002, the Government imposed the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.100/- per month, for one year vide G.O.(D)No.182, M&WS(ME-III) Department, dated 20.05.2002. He further submitted that regular pension proposals of the petitioner were received by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai only on 01.12.2003 vide letter No.3512/C1/2003 dated 27.11.2003 of the Commissioner, Chengalpet Municipality and immediately on receipt of the proposals, pensionary benefits were sanctioned by the 2nd respondent on 13.02.2004.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the following amounts were sanctioned by the 2nd respondent on 13.02.2004, as per the details.
DCRG:
Total Amount : Rs.47,438/-
Recovery : NIL
----------------
Net : Rs.47,438/-
Commutation
Pension : Rs. 1,198/-
1/3rd portio
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.