Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2051 (MAD)

L. Mani v. The Asst. General Manager & Others

2008-06-27

K.CHANDRU

body2008
Judgment :- Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to release the petitioners terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and group saving linked insurance with interest at the rate of 24% per annum w.e.f. 02.02.1997 till the date of realization. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who joined as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent Insurance Company, subsequently, got promoted as Divisional Manager and while he was serving as a Divisional Manager at Bellary, he got an employment at Muscat. He sent his resignation on 011. 1996 giving three months notice to the respondents and without waiting for any order of relief, he left for joining in the new assignment. However, the respondents conducted an enquiry against certain irregularities committed by the petitioner when he was serving in Bellary Divisional Office for which a show cause notice was issued on 03. 1996 and he submitted his explanation dated 17.01.1997 which was not satisfactory. A charge-memo was given to the petitioner on 07.01.1998 and since charges were framed, his resignation was not accepted. The enquiry against the petitioner resulted in the punishment of reduction in basic salary by four stages in the time scale of pay permanently in terms of Rule 23(e) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 and hence, a recovery of Rs. 17,766/- was ordered. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 07. 2002 to the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by his order dated 09. 2002, concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal. Even while the proceedings were pending, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to pay the terminal benefits with 24% interest on the ground that there was an inordinate delay. 5. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not challenged the punishment imposed pursuant to the enquiry conducted against him. When that is the case, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner should be paid terminal benefits from the date on which he left the services of the company on his own and joined with a foreign employer. When that is the case, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner should be paid terminal benefits from the date on which he left the services of the company on his own and joined with a foreign employer. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner has now stated that the terminal benefits have been paid and the only question remains is the question of interest. The petitioner is not able to rely upon any rule by which he is entitled to get any interest. 6. This Court has held that if there is an inordinate delay caused by the employer, even in the absence of any rule, the grant of interest on terminal benefits can be justified basing upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This position of law has been clarified in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana [2008 AIR SCW 689]. The relevant passage found in paragraph 11 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted: Para 11: ".... In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof." [Emphasis added] 7. In the present case, the petitioner assumed that his resignation was accepted in the year 1997 and, therefore, there was a delay in paying the terminal dues whereas even after filing of the writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings have continued resulting in imposition of punishment on the petitioner, which has not been questioned by him before any legal forum. Therefore, it is difficult to presume that there was an intentional delay on the part of the respondent New India Assurance Company in paying the terminal benefits. 8. Therefore, it is difficult to presume that there was an intentional delay on the part of the respondent New India Assurance Company in paying the terminal benefits. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.