State authorities are liable to pay interest on delayed pensionary benefits and DCRG when the delay in disbursement is excessive and unjustified, regardless of the reasons for the belated compliance.

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Poovendra Perumal for R1 Mr.A.N.R.Jaya Pratap Standing Counsel for R2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 24.11.2025 made in W.P.No.45805 of 2025. 2. The present first respondent, who was the writ petitioner, is the wife of one Late Muninanjan, who was an employee of the appellant Department and retired from service on superannuation. On his superannuation, since he retired peacefully, he is entitled to get DCRG as well as pensionary benefits, however, the same has not been calculated and paid to him immediately.

3. For longer period, it has not been paid and he is no more now, therefore, his widow, that is the writ petitioner Rajamma, who is the first respondent herein, had moved a writ petition seeking pensionary benefits, which in fact, has to be paid based on the retirement of the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner on 30.06.2004, however, that amount had been disbursed only now on 01.08.2025 and it has been after twenty one years.

4. For such huge delay in disbursing the DCRG and pension arrears, the deceased employee since was entitled to get interest as provided under the Statutes also as provided under various orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances, the first respondent/writ petitioner had requested to make the said interest also, but, that was not considered, therefore, she was constrained to move W.P.No.45805 of 2025.

5. The said writ petition, having been considered, was allowed by the Writ Court, whereby, it was directed to calculate 6% interest for the belated payment of DCRG and pension arrears and accordingly, the said amount be calculated and paid to the widow of the deceased employee, who had already retired from service in the year 2004 and such payment should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the Writ Court, which is impugned herein.

6. Vehement contentions have been made to assail the order impugned by Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, to state that, whether the deceased employee, that is the husband of the first respondent/writ petitioner, is entitled to get such DCRG and pensionary benefits in view of the judgment already been rendered by the Full Bench of this Court with regard to the calculation of the entire service rendered by the employee prior to the regularisation itself is a question, where, the issue itself is pending before the highest Court of the Country. When that being the position, only in order to avoid contempt proceedings initiated by the deceased employee against the appellant Department, since the pensionary benefits and DCRG have been paid in the year 2025, it would not ipso facto give right to seek or claim interest to be calculated from the date of superannuation till the date of payment, for which, such interest of 6%, if it is calculated for twenty one years, a huge sum would accrue and therefore, such a direction ought not to have been given by the Writ Court, is the contention made by the learned Additional Advocate General.

7. We have also heard Mr.L.Poovendra Perumal, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner.

8. Insofar as the said contention made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants is concerned, we are not impressed with the same for the simple reason that, as to whether the deceased employee was entitled to ge