Delayed disbursement of retirement benefits must be penalized with interest, and no absolute immunity can be granted for the violation of court orders.

1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 5th respondent/Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Roc No.4597/06/T2-1, dated 27.03.2007, quash the same insofar as para-3 in respect of payment of interest and direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.m. for the following amounts:

a) For the gratuity amount of Rs.2,30,112/- from 01.04.2001 to 22.10.2006;

b) For the settlement of leave amount of Rs.71,231/- from 01.04.2001 to 25.04.2007 ; and

c) For arrears of salary on refixation from 01.04.2001 upto the date of disbursement,and grant such other relief as the Court deems fit.

2. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that it is a pathetic case where the petitioner’s husband by name Muthukumaraswamy, while serving as Selection Grade Executive Officer at Sattankulam, Tirunelveli District, from 09.06.1997 to 20.10.1997, was placed under suspension by the orders of the Director of Town Panchayat by proceedings dated 16.10.1997 and that, while the proceedings were pending, he died on 31.12.2000. When the law is clear that, on the demise of a Government Servant, the departmental proceedings faced by him will stand abated, in the case of the petitioner’s husband, after his death, the petitioner/widow was though settled with the funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and also consortium payment of Rs.1 lakh which is applicable to all government servants dying in service, other major retirement benefits like gratuity, leave surrender, increment, etc. were not settled for a long time. Hence, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing W.P. No.25360 of 2004 and the said petition was disposed of by order dated 08.12.2005 by observing that it was not in dispute that, after complying with other formalities, the Accountant General has passed the order dated Nil, September, 2005, quantifying the amount but the second respondent, even after receipt of the said report, has not disbursed the amount. So observing, this Court had directed the third respondent therein viz., the Principal Accountant General, Chennai-18, to pass final orders on the petitioner’s claim pursuant to the recommendation made by the second respondent/Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Based on such direction issued by this Court, the Accountant General also sanctioned the gratuity amount and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 2,30,112/- on 22.10.2006. But unfortunately, the period of suspension was not regulated.

2(a). Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, during the period of suspension, the petitioner’s husband was paid 50% of the salary and, after his demise, as the suspension period has to be treated as duty for all practical purposes, the widow/petitioner is entitled to get the remaining 50% of the salary as no departmental proceedings could continue in view of death of her husband. Further, as per the Government Orders in force, the retirement benefits have to be settled within 90 days from the date of death of the Government Servant. As those benefits have been settled much belatedly, she is also entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from 01.04.2000 to 22.10.2006 for the gratuity.

2(b). Learned Senior Counsel added that even five years after the demise of the petitioner’s husband in 2000 i.e., subsequent to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 08.12.2005, directing the Principal Accountant General to pass final orders on the petitioner’s claim on the recommendation made by the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, the authorities did not come forward to comply with the order so as to disburse the service benefits to the widow/petitioner. According to him, when it is an admitted case of delay in settlement of retirement benefits despite this Court’s Order, it is but necessary