The court ruled that interest for delayed pension benefits must adhere strictly to pension rules, mitigating claims during disciplinary proceedings.

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The State preferred the intra Court appeal challenging the writ order dated 07.01.2019 in W.P(MD)No.24480 of 2018.

2.The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the G.O.(P)No.

103 Environment and Forest Department dated 07.05.2018 settling the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the respondent.

3.The fact remains that the respondent was due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2007. However, he was placed under suspension before his date of retirement i.e., on 26.09.2007. Since disciplinary proceedings was initiated, he was not allowed to retire and his services were extended. Therefore, question of settling the terminal and pensionary benefits at that point of time would not arise at all. Charge memo was issued and the respondent challenged the charge memo by filing the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11404 of 2009. The writ petition was allowed and the charge memo was set aside by this Court vide order dated 03.06.2014. Since the charge memorandum issued by the competent authority was set aside, the petitioner made an application seeking settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits. Thereafter, action was initiated and the Government settled the terminal and pensionary benefits in G.O.(P).No.103 dated 07.05.2018. Not satisfied with the settlement of benefits, the petitioner again filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.24480 of 2018 challenging the said Government order.

4.The learned Counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the charge memo has been set aside by this Court and therefore, the writ Court has directed the Government to settle 12% interest for the delayed settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits.

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that even the interest amount has been settled at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of the respondent in G.O.(P) No.103 from 01.02.2008 to 31.11.2015. Since the interest has been calculated at the rate of 8% interest per annum, as per the Government orders, the award of 12% interest per annum as ordered by the writ Court is not only exorbitant and not based on the pension rules applicable.

Therefore, the writ appeal is to be considered.

6.This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

7.The fact remains that the respondent was not allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2007 and placed under suspension. His services were extended, charge memo was issued and he filed a writ petition challenging the charge memo and this Court set aside the charge memo vide order dated 03.06.2014.

Thereafter, no further proceedings are continued and therefore, action was initiated to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the respondent.

8.The contention of the respondent is that the interest is to be calculated for all the terminal and pensionary benefits including leave salary etc. However, the applicable interest to the eligible benefits are contemplated under Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules . Therefore, the interest for belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits is to be calculated only with reference to the terms and conditions stipulated under Rule 45A of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978.

9.During the pendency of the departmental/disciplinary proceedings or criminal case, the employee is not entitled to seek settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits and also the interest. Such conditions are enumerated under Rule 45 A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the