BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B.Pugalendhi, J.
K.Nagarathinam - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Agriculture and ors. - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.21968 of 2019 and WMP(MD) No.530 of 2025
Decided On : 24-01-2025
ORDER :
B.Pugalendhi, J.
The petitioner is a retired Assistant Agriculture Officer. While he was in service, a disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 has been initiated as against him that he has caused a loss to the Government for a sum of Rs.37,100/-, while implementing the National Horticulture Mission Scheme and also for certain other supervisory lapses. A charge memo vide DCS2/5657/2013, dated 06.01.2014 has been issued to the petitioner, by the Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops and he was placed under suspension on 31.01.2015. Thereafter, the order of suspension was revoked on 08.07.2016 and he was also permitted to retire from service on his attaining the age of superannuation, by a proceedings, dated 20.07.2016, without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, on proved charges, a punishment of ''reduction of Rs.300/- per month from the pension for 18 months'' has been imposed vide G.O(3D) No.267, Agriculture (AA 8) Department, dated 18.11.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment.
2.Apart from the above departmental proceedings, a case in Crime No.1 of 2009 has also been registered as against this petitioner that he stood as a guarantor for an accused in a criminal case. Therefore, the pension proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Accountant General (A&E)/the second respondent herein for his involvement in the criminal case. The petitioner with a grievance that his terminal benefits was not settled has filed a writ petition in WP(MD) No.13207 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 11.07.2018 on the following terms:-
i. The issue is remitted back to the second respondent for reconsideration and while making the reconsideration, the second respondent shall bear in mind the observations made in this order, as referred to above and accordingly, take a decision with regard to the grant of pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner and such decision shall be taken by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii. In this regard, the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Ramanathapuram, who is the proper authority to forward the pension proposals of the petitioner to the second respondent for appropriate decision, shall forward the said proposal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same from such officer, the pension proposals shall be decided as directed above by the second respondent within the time stipulated therein.''
3. Pursuant to the above order, dated 11.07.2018, the respondents have settled the terminal benefits to this petitioner on 04.04.2019. The petitioner has made a further representation that he is entitled for interest for the belated payment of DCRG, as per the provision under Section 45 A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, before the respondents and filed this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest for the belated payment of DCRG. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been clarified in Finance (Pension) Department Letter No.21397/PENSION/91, dated 19.05.1991 that interest has to be allowed for the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Benefits.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that this petitioner is not entitled for interest as per Provision under Section 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. However, in the event, if any proposal has been sent by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai/the first respondent, the same would be considered by the Accountant General. He further submits that the Department alone has to take a call on the payment of interest on belated payment of DCRG, as per the Government instructions in letter No.103354/Pension/07-2, dated 07.09.1997, wherein, th
Interest on delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is governed by Section 45 A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and must be considered unless pending judicial proceedings affect entit....
Interest on delayed DCRG payment is mandated under Rule 45-A(I-A) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, post-exoneration, reinforcing the obligation to settle pension benefits timely.
Government employees are entitled to receive timely retirement benefits and can claim interest on delayed payments due to administrative failure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, a retired person is entitled to belated payment interest on all terminal benefits, inclu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability to pay interest for delayed disbursement of statutory dues as per Rule-49(5) of the Orissa Pension Rules and constitutional provision....
Entitlement to claim interest for belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits as per the established legal proposition.
Employees' rightful entitlement to salaries and pensions, and the need for equitable considerations in cases of deferred payments.
Pension and gratuity are recognized as valuable rights, and any unjustified delay in their disbursement entitles the employee to claim interest, irrespective of specific provisions in service rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.