Government employees are entitled to receive timely retirement benefits and can claim interest on delayed payments due to administrative failure.

ORDER :

Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.

While the petitioner was working as 'Deputy Collector/ Distillery Officer' in Kothari Sugars and Company, Tiruchirapalli, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on certain charges levelled against him. While such proceedings were pending, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000. In view of the same, the Government issued G.O (D) No.376, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 30.06.2000, permitting the petitioner to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. It was thereafter the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated by issuing a charge-memo dated 09.05.2000 were continued by duly conducting an enquiry and through the Government Letter No.27176/Ser.2(2)/2001-13, dated 16.10.2002 proposed to impose the punishment of cut in pension at Rs.100/- for a period of three months. The petitioner claimed to have accepted to suffer the said punishment. However, the said disciplinary proceedings, which ought to have been concluded on 16.10.2002 were not concluded, but they were again reopened by issuing a fresh charge-memo dated 23.11.2005 in supersession of the previous charge-memo dated 09.05.2000 and thereafter, the said disciplinary proceedings continued for about four years and concluded through G.O (D) No.258, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 28.05.2009, imposing the punishment of cut in pension at Rs.500/- per month for a period of one year. The said punishment was accepted by the petitioner and that has attained finality. During the pendancy of the said disciplinary proceedings, the amounts that were due to the petitioner towards retirement benefits were all paid except the commutted value of pension and DCRG amounts in the light of the Rules 60 and 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules . It was on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on 28.05.2009, the committed value of pension of Rs.2,13,477/- and DCRG amounts of Rs.1,31,504/- were paid to the petitioner through PPO.No.C209776/Revenue dated 03.11.2009.

2. It was thereafter, the petitioner made a claim for payment of interest on delayed payment of committed value of pension and DCRG amount and having failed to get any response from the respondents, approached this court by filing the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the belated payment on commutted value of pension and DCRG amount, encashment of Earned Leave, GPF etc., with effect from 01.10.2000.

3. Heard Ms.Nivedha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Mano Rajan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3.

4. From the factual aspects narrated above, it is evident that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2000 and the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-memo dated 09.05.2000 were concluded ultimately only on 28.05.2009 by issuing G.O (D) No.258, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 28.05.2009. Thus, there is more than nine years time passed by the time the disciplinary proceedings were concluded. Absolutely there is nothing to show that the petitioner is in anyway responsible for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings .

5. On the other hand, it appears that the reason for issuance of a fresh charge-memo, in superstition of the previous charge memo on 23.11.2005 is because of the objections raised by the TNPSC. Even assuming that there is no much delay in issuing a fresh charge-memo dated 23.11.2005, it was thereafter, the respondents took about four years for concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, at no point of time, the petitioner can be said to be responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

6. It is necessary to notice that the said disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2