Retiring employees are entitled to interest on delayed terminal benefits as per judicial directives, reaffirming previous orders regarding pension disbursement.

ORDER :

K.KUMARESH BABU., J.

The lis involved in these batch of Writ Petitions is as to whether the first respondent in the respective Writ Petitions are entitled to interest for the belated payment of their terminal benefits and hence, with the consent of the respective learned counsels are taken up together.

2. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent in the respective Writ Petitions.

3. Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent in the respective Writ Petitions were working on ad hoc basis in the respective posts. They had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking for regularisation wherein by order dated 04.12.2001, the petitioners were directed to consider their case for regularisation. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions which came to be dismissed and the same has also been affirmed by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. In the interregnum, the first respondent had superannuated from service. Alleging non implementation of the orders of this court, a Contempt Petition was filed before this Court. Pending the Contempt proceedings, regularisation orders were passed regularising the first respondent from the date of their initial appointment and recording the same, the Contempt Petitions were closed with an observation that they will be entitled for pension under the old pension regulations. Alleging non-compliance of payment of pension, a further Contempt Petitions came to be filed, wherein directions were issued to calculate the pensionary benefits as per the old pension scheme along with the arrears. Based upon the said directions, pensionary benefits were also disbursed. Recording the same, the Contempt Petitions were closed.

5. While that being so, the respective first respondent had sent representations seeking interest on the retirement benefits which was rejected by the petitioners. Challenging the same, the first respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking 12% interest on the retirement benefits that had been paid belatedly. This claim of the first respondent was contested by the petitioners, however, under the impugned orders, the Tribunal has issued direction to pay 6% interest per annum on the belated payments.

6. He would vehemently contend that in none of the orders, this Court had directed payment of interest. But, however as a passing remark had included the work “interest” in its order and this would not entitle the first respondent for payment of interest. He would submit that the regularisation itself was made pursuant to the litigation raised by the first respondent and therefore there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in disbursing the terminal benefits and hence, they are also not liable to pay the interest. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court with the orders impugned herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further rely upon the order of this Court in Cont.P.No.1465 of 2016 dated 25.06.2019 wherein pursuant to the direction issued on 01.02.2017, recording the payment of pensionary benefits to close the Writ Petitions.

8. Countering his arguments, Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondents in the respective Writ Petitions would rely upon the direction issued by this court in Cont.P.No.1465 of 2016 dated 01.02.2017 would submit that there has been a specific direction to work out the pensionary benefits payable to the first respondent along with arrears and interest on the said amount.