Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2302
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. MANIKUMAR AND G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
Cardamom Planters' Association College, through its Secretary & Correspondent - Appellant
Vs.
Mrs. G. Selva - Respondent
Writ Appeal (MD)No.599 of 2015 M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 06.07.2015
For Appellant : Mr. M. Senthil Kumar
For 1st Respondent: Mr. D. Sivakumaran
For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr. M. Govindan,Special Government Pleader
An employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines.
Headnote:
Delay in Payment of Retiral Benefits - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules - Rule 53, Rule 61 - The court found delay on the part of the Management in forwarding the proposals and equally, delay on the part of the Regional Joint Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, in sanctioning and making payment of terminal benefits. The court held that the Management failed to discharge its duties under the Pension rules and that the writ petitioner cannot be found at fault. The court also cited legal precedents to establish that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an employee of the appellant-College, filed a petition challenging the delay in the payment of her retiral benefits. The Management failed to forward the pension application in Form-5 to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 61(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The court found delay on the part of the Management in forwarding the proposals and equally, delay on the part of the Regional Joint Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, in sanctioning and making payment of terminal benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Management failed to discharge its duties under the Pension rules and that the writ petitioner cannot be found at fault. The court also cited legal precedents to establish that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in forwarding the pension application, the failure of the Management to discharge its duties under the Pension rules, and the entitlement of the employee to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Management failed to discharge its duties under the Pension rules and that the writ petitioner cannot be found at fault. The court also cited legal precedents to establish that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Cardamom Planters' Association College, represented by its Secretary and Correspondent, has challenged the order made in W. P(MD)No.7428 of 2012, dated 14.11.2014, by which, a learned single Judge, has found that the appellant herein, has delayed, forwarding the proposals and that the educational authorities, viz., respondents 2 and 3 herein, have delayed in sanctioning the retiral benefits to the petitioner. On the above finding, learned single Judge has directed the appellant herein to pay interest at 9% per annum, for the entire amount, due to the petitioner, from the date of her entitlement, till the date on which the proposal was forwarded to the Regional Joint Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Regional Office, Madurai, 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent herein, has also been directed to pay interest at the same rate, from the date on which, the proposal was received till 09.07.2012, for the entire amount and till 31.05.2013, for the balance amount, settled on 31.05.2013.
2. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:
The writ petitioner/1st respondent joined the service of the appellant-College on 23.07.1976. She was promoted as Assistant Professor (Tamil), in the year 1979. As per the date of birth, she had to attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010. Two month's prior to the date of superannuation, she sent a representation to the Management, to take steps for settling her retiral benefits. She also requested the College to forward the proposals for re-deployment, till the end of the academic year, 2010-11, ie., 31.05.2011. On 28.12.1010, the Management has turned down the request, for redeployment, which compelled the writ petitioner to file W.P.No.15049 of 2010. Vide order, dated 04.03.2011, a learned single Judge while setting aside the order of rejection for re-deployment, directed the respondents therein, to provide re-employment till 31.05.2011. The same was challenged by the Management in W.A.No.350 of 2011 and vide judgment, dated 24.03.2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench has confirmed the above said order.
3. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that immediately, after attaining the age of superannuation and during the pendency of W.P.No.15049 of 2010 and after the disposal of the Writ Appeal on 24.03.2011, she sent due representations on 31.12.2010, 09.02.2011 and 07.04.2011, respectively, to the respondents, to settle her retiral benefits. But the Management failed to forward the proposals, either for payment of salary or for terminal benefits of the petitioner, which compelled her to file another W.P.(MD)No.5653 of 2011. The latter writ petition was disposed of on 07.12.2011, on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the Management that there was no delay on the part of the Management in forwarding the proposals for terminal benefits. Only on 12.01.2012, proposals were forwarded by the Management to the Regional Joint Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Madurai, 3rd respondent herein. Thus, there was a delay of 16 months in forwarding the proposal, by the Management.
4. Though the proposal was forwarded by the Management on 12.01.2012, terminal benefits were not paid to the petitioner for more than six months. The college has failed to enclose the ''No Due Certificate'', which caused the delay of more than six months. In the abovesaid circumstances, W.P.No.7428 of 2012, has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents therein, to pay the terminal benefits, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. The Secretary and Correspondent of the appellant-College, has filed a counter affidavit, stating that re-employment was not given to the petitioner, as she was not co-operating with the College Management, towards the welfare of the students. However, pursuant to the directions of this Court, steps were taken. As per the directions given in W.A.No.350 of 2011, the writ petitioner was reemployed. After the orders in W.P.No.5653 o
