O R D E R

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of interest on belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he entered service as a directly recruited Gramasevak Grade-I on 02.06.1989. He was promoted as Extension Officer in the year 1992 and further promoted to the post of Block Development Officer in the year 1997.

3. On initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension in G.O.(2D).No.120, Rural Development Department dated 29.05.1998, a day prior to his date of superannuation i.e on 31.05.1998. After completion of the departmental enquiry on 22.01.2003, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service with effect form 31.05.1998. The departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner ended with an order of punishment of cut in pension at Rs.200/- per month for a period of 24 months as per the Government order issued in G.O.(D).No.572, Rural Development (E6)

Department dated 03.12.2003.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was due for his superannuation on 31.05.1998 and the retirement benefits due to him were paid belatedly during the year 2003. As per the Government order in force in G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance Department dated 20.02.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get Compound Interest at 12% per annum for the payment of Gratuity amount. He is also entitled for interest on all other retirement benefits including Special Provident Fund, Commutation of pension. In this regard, the petitioner made number of representation and no order was passed by the respondents. Thus, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.31551 of 2015 and this Court directed the respondents on 06.10.2015, to consider the representation and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order dated 08.06.2016, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner has been issued and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the petitioner is entitled for interest on all the belated settlement of pensionary benefits. The petitioner received the pensionary benefits in the year 2003 and the benefits, which all are to be settled in the year 1998 were also not settled regarding leave salary etc., and for the said amount, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of his retirement and in respect of Gratuity, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of passing of the final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner ended with an order of punishment of cut-in-pension in the year 2003. The charges were held proved against the writ petitioner and based on the proved charges, the Government imposed punishment in G.O.(D).No.572, Rural Development (E6) Department dated 03.12.2003. The punishment of cut in pension was imposed under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Immediately after the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, all the retirement benefits were sanctioned to the petitioner during July and August of the year 2004.

Due to the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner, the retirement benefits were not settled and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the respondents.

7. As per G.O.122, Finance Department, dated 20.02.1995, interest for belated DCRG could be claimed only when the delay could not be attributed to the individual. But as far as the petitioner is concerned, the delay is due to pending of disciplinary action against him and the disciplinary proceedings eventually ended up with