Entitlement to claim interest for belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits as per the established legal proposition.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in No. A.4/732/2013 dated 17.05.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner on the belated payment of the benefits mentioned in the impugned order and grant him all consequential benefits including the payment of arrears.

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of interest to the petitioner on the belated payment of the terminal benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that he was appointed as Assistant (Selection Grade), Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam and placed under suspension on account of initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect in proceedings dated 30.12.1994.

3. The order of punishment was also set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 16164 of 2006. In view of the initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceedings there was a delay in settling the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the writ petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the delay in settling the terminal benefits was admitted by the respondents and it is stated as on the ground of administrative delay. Since the delay is admitted by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for interest for the belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents is unable to dispute the fact regarding belated settlement of the terminal and pensionary benefits. Paragraph-7 of the counter reveals the same, which reads as under:

“7. It is respectfully submitted that the interest on belated payment cannot be given to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for interest on the belated payment for the following events:

(i) The petitioner submitted his pension proposal on 27.08.2008 to this office and the same was forwarded to the Accountant General, Chennai by Letter No. B3/5987/08 dated 02.09.2008. The orders were obtained for DCRG on 08.11.2008. For the administrative reasons the bill was sent to District Treasury, Nagapattinam on 17.12.2008 and the same was sent to ECS Credit on 02.01.2009 by Treasury.

(ii) The Earned Leave Payment also paid to the petitioner on 23.09.2009 by ECS by submitting the bill on 05.05.2009.

(iii) In view of the order of this Hon'ble Court in O.A. No. 16164/2006, dated 11.04.2007, the incremental arrear payment was also paid to the petitioner on 11.08.2009 for the period from 01.10.1995 to 07.11.1999.

(iv) Further in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, the due payment was also paid to the petitioner for the period from 08.11.1999 to 30.06.2008 by bank account on 26.08.2009.

(v) Further as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 10591/2011 dated 26.04.2011, the balance payment of increment, Earned Leave, Pay Commission arrear, DCRG, Commutation, Pension payment, revised pay are all paid to the petitioner and further all the payments are given to the petitioner from time to time as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court. Further the petitioner has not served in the city limit, hence he cannot claim for interest on HRA and CCA. Therefore, in the event of continuous payment given to the petitioner, the interest cannot be claimed. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim interest to the payment paid to him.”

6. Interest for belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits as per the rules is a settled proposition by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to Government, Gover