Appellants are obligated to pay 7% interest on delayed pension payments, reflective of prior rulings and financial assessments.

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

26.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35693 of 2019. Appellants were respondents 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition. Respondents are the petitioner and 1^st respondent in the W.P.(C), respectively.

2. The Writ Petition had been filed by the 1^st respondent seeking the following prayers :

“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest as claimed in Ext.P12 and mentioned the details of the claim in Ext.P12(a) on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner viz., (1) terminal surrender of earned leave (2) pension arrears (3) pension commutation (4) release of provisional DCRG (5) release in the balance DCRG amount and (6) salary arrears etc. ;

(ii) to declare that from the pleadings and contentions raised in the Writ Petition supported by details at Exts.P11, P12 and P12(a) the petitioner is entitled to receive interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits mentioned and claimed in Exts.P12 and P12(a) ;

(iii) to grant such other and further relief as this Honourable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Single Judge had vide the impugned judgment disposed of the Writ Petition directing as follows :

“In such circumstances, I order this Writ Petition as under :

i. Respondents 2 and 3 would provide interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of the terminal benefits as pointed out in Ext.P12 application, at the rate of 7%.

ii. The above interest is to be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii. The petitioner to submit a detailed representation enclosing a copy of this judgment with calculations to the 2^nd respondent; in which event, the 2^nd respondent will hear the petitioner also and take a decision on the claims as above in the light of the above findings.

iv. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest with reference to the expiry of two months from the date of retirement (30.11.2012).”

Aggrieved by the above, to the extent it awarded interest on terminal surrender of earned leave, pension arrears, pension commutation, salary arrears etc., this appeal had been filed.

4. We have heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, for the appellant, V.N.Ramesan Nambisan for the 1^st respondent and Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent.

5. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in awarding 7% interest for delay in disbursing the terminal benefits. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.2454 of 2019 and 129 of 2020, wherein the Division Bench had taken note of the extreme financial difficulties of the Khadi Board and had declined to exercise the discretion and had refused to disturb the direction to pay 7% interest on delayed disbursement of DCRG. It is contended that the said dictum applies to the case of the 1^st respondent as well, and hence, he is not entitled to the payment of interest terminal benefits other than DCRG. It is further contended that the 1^st respondent had been paid only a minimum pension at the time of his retirement on account of pendency of the cases, as there was no clarity on the pay applicable to the 1^st respondent, as the grant of the 2^nd higher grade had been interdicted by the Government. Due to pendency of cases, including the SLP, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, pension could be released only after the culmination of the cases and the same was done without delay. No laches or negligence could be attributed to penalise the appellant by payment of interest. That the appellan