Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
P. Stanley Paulraj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its, Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 2069 of 2020
Decided On : 19-06-2023
Mandamus - Delayed Payment of Retirement Benefits - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules - Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund, and Encashment of Leave Salary - 2010 (8 MLJ 249), 2008 (3 MLJ 1), 2019 (2) Supreme 513
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Director, sought mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not request interest for the belated payment. The court considered the petitioner's retirement benefits and the delay in payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, citing previous judgments and the Constitution's Articles 14, 19, and 21. The court held that the petitioner should be paid interest at the rate of 8% per annum on retirement benefits from one month after retirement until the payment is made.
Issues: Delay in payment of retirement benefits, entitlement to interest for belated payment, and the petitioner's request for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, emphasizing the property rights of the petitioner and citing previous judgments and constitutional provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on retirement benefits from one month after retirement until the payment is made to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and any connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner and pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits of SPF, GPF and encashment of leave salary.)
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits of SPF, GPF and encashment of leave salary in the interest of justice.
2. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
3. Heard Mr.K.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on 30.10.1979 in the Public Works Department of the respondents. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Director (Assistant Executive Engineer), Hydrology Sub-Division, and postedin Poondi Reservoir, Thiruvallur District. He retired from service on 31.07.2013. The respondents framed certain charges against the petitioner under Rule 17b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. This Court by its order dated 24.11.2021 in W.P.Nos.34089 & 34090 of 2022 quashed the charges levelled against the petitioner. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the belated payment of terminal benefits payable to the petitioner by the respondents.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that after retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2013, they paid Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and encashment of leave salary to the petitioner. They further contended that though the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.07.2017 requesting the second respondent to settle his retirement benefits, he did not request to pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits and as such, now he is not entitled for the interest.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by this Court in S.Ramadoss vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department reported in (2010) 8 MLJ 249 and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 and the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. C.Girija & Others reported in 2019 (2) Supreme 513.
7. This court gave anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the respective counsels and perused the record and have gone through the reliances placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. It is an admitted fact that the respondents framed certain charges against the petitioner during the service and subsequently, he retired from service. It is also an admitted fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner were quashed by this Court by its order dated 24.11.2021 in W.P.Nos.34089 & 34090 of 2012. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they admitted that after retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2013, they paid Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and encashment of leave salary to the petitioner, but it is not stated in the said counter affidavit what is the date of the payment of the said amounts to the petitioner.
9. In my considered opinion, the amounts to be paid to the petitioner towards Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and encashment of leave salary are the properties of the petitioner. As such, though disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondents have no right to withhold the same without making payment to the petitioner. It appears in the present case that though the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2013, the said
An employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of retirement benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules, relying on constitutional provisions.
An employer is legally obligated to pay interest for the delay in the settlement of terminal benefits to retired employees, and the court may quantify this interest at a reasonable rate based on subm....
An employer is liable to pay interest at a reasonable rate set by the court on terminal benefits delayed beyond the date of retirement as part of an employee's entitlement to timely payment of retire....
Retired employees are entitled to interest on delayed terminal benefits.
A superannuated employee is entitled to interest on terminal benefits if the delay in disbursement is not attributable to the employee's own actions.
An employer is liable to pay interest at a reasonable rate (6% per annum) on terminal benefits disbursed to an employee with significant delay following retirement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
