JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.5815 of 2013.)

1. This intra-court appeal is preferred by the Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality challenging the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.771 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of commuted value of pension to the petitioner at Rs.1,21,968/- from 1.8.99 to 31.12.2012 within a reasonable time.

2. The first respondent herein/writ petitioner retired from service as Revenue Inspector on superannuation and he was relieved from the services of the appellant-municipality on 31.07.1999, subject to audit objections pending against him in other municipalities. The appellant has forwarded the pension proposal on 29.11.1999 and the same was returned by the fourth respondent herein, namely the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai, on 10.2.2000, citing pending audit objections. Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein issued an order to regulate the pension and gratuity of the petitioner after a period of 13 years after his retirement. The petitioner having received the regular pension and other benefits, filed a writ petition in W.P. No.1654 of 2010 for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and commutation of pension due to the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum and a further direction to the respondents to draw and disburse the amount within a reasonable time.

3. The said writ petition was disposed on 13.03.2012 directing the second respondent herein to consider petitioner’s representation after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass orders in a time bound manner.

4. Thereafter in compliance of the said order, the second respondent herein vide G.O. No.243 dated 27.9.2012, considered the case of the petitioner and ordered for sanction of interest for the belated payment of DCRG and directed the Municipal Administration to ensure the correctness of interest calculation as per the orders in force. The petitioner received a sum of Rs.3,39,043/- as interest towards belated payment of DCRG. He has also received a sum of Rs.1,21,968/- on 8.6.2012 as commuted pension.

5. The petitioner once again filed a writ petition in W.P. No.5815 of 2013 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of commuted value of pension to the petitioner at Rs.1,21,968/- from 1.8.1999 to 31.12.2012, within a reasonable time.

6. The learned single judge, after hearing both sides, passed the following order :

“3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was awarded the relief of terminal benefits by G.O.Ms.No.243, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME.1) Department, dated 27.09.2012 and the entire amount has been paid to him. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.1650 of 2012 and this Court, by an order dated 13.03.2012, directed the Respondents therein to pass orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the 3rd Respondent issued an order regulating the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner after a period of 13 years of his retirement. Now, the only ground taken by the Respondents is that when there is no provision under the Rules, the question of sanction of interest does not arise.

4. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that in cases of belated payment, interest shall be paid, as terminal benefits due to the employee is not a gratis or bounty in the absence of statutory rules. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, is extracted hereunder:

“... grant of pension is not a bounty but a r