Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4497 (MAD)

K. Meera Bai v. The Collector of Chennai

2010-10-05

R.BANUMATHI

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay compound interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the delayed payment of all the pensionary benefits for the period from 01.09.2000 to 14.09.2001. 2. Briefly stated case of Petitioner is as follows:- (i) Petitioner was working as Assistant in the office of the 2nd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Egmore Zone and he had given voluntary retirement letter on 19.04.2000 and had voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2000. Provisional pension of Rs.49,844/- [Rs.2813/- per month] w.e.f. 01.09.2000 and the provisional DCRG for Rs.1,34,129/- was sanctioned by the Collector of Chennai by the Proceedings No.D1/32245/2001 dated 11.08.2001 and No.D1/7376/2001 dated 11.8.2001 respectively and the same was drawn and paid to the Petitioner on 14.09.2001. Proposals for pensionary benefit was forwarded by the Collector of Chennai by letter No.D1/50630/01 dated 19.09.2002 and on receipt of the proposals, pensionary benefits were authorised by the 3rd Respondent-Accountant General of Tamil Nadu on 15.11.2002. On account of the delay in settlement of the provisional pension and gratuity, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming compound interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period from 01.09.2000 to 14.09.2001 [i.e. from the date of retirement till the date of payment of provisional gratuity]. (ii) Case of Petitioner is that the provisional pension and provisional gratuity are to be paid within 15 days from the date of retirement and inspite of number of representations and reminders, Respondents have not taken any steps for disbursement of pension and gratuity. The provisional pension and provisional gratuity was paid only on 14.09.2001 after a lapse of 13 months and therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compound interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.09.2000 to 14.09.2001 i.e. from the date of retirement till the date of payment of provisional gratuity. 3. 2nd Respondent has filed counter stating that at the time of voluntary retirement made by the Petitioner, the pension proposals could not be finalised due to the reason that some period of break in service was not regularised and as a result of which the increment due to the individual could not be sanctioned. Case of 2nd Respondent is that the pay already fixed in the post of Assistant has been objected by the Petitioner and requested revision of the same. Case of 2nd Respondent is that the pay already fixed in the post of Assistant has been objected by the Petitioner and requested revision of the same. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent has revised the pay of the Petitioner and fixation orders issued on 31.3.2001. It is averred that the Service Register of the Petitioner was sent to the 1st Respondent for regularisation of break in service and there is no delay in disbursing the terminal benefits. According to 2nd Respondent, since there is no delay, payment of compound interest does not arise and prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 4. 3rd Respondent-Accountant General filed counter stating that 3rd Respondent being the Field Officer of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India would issue authorisation for payment of pensionary benefits in respect of the retired/deceased employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, based on the proposal received from the Department. Case of 3rd Respondent is that pension proposals for issue of authorisation has been received by the 3rd Respondent on 04.10.2002 and authorisation for payment of pension, Commutation and DCRG were issued on 15.11.2002 and there was no delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent in issuing authorisation for payment of pensionary benefits. 5. Mr.Subburaj, learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that as per the Government Order, provisional gratuity and provisional pension ought to have been sanctioned within a period of 15 days from the date of retirement. But the provisional gratuity was paid to the Petitioner only on 14.09.2001 after a lapse of 13 months and therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. 6. Heard Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.T.S.Selvarani, learned counsel appearing for 3rd Respondent-Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. 7. Petitioner-Meerabai, borne on the establishment of Collectorate, Chennai was working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax), Egmore as "Assistant" on deputation basis from 03.03.2003. Petitioner went on Earned Leave for 18 days from 22.05.2000 to 08.06.2000 and from 09.06.2000 to 12.06.2000 respectively (loss of pay for 4 days). Petitioner voluntarily retired on the afternoon of 31.08.2000 as per the Proceedings of the Collector, Chennai in A2/22895/2000 dated 31.08.2000. 8. Petitioner went on Earned Leave for 18 days from 22.05.2000 to 08.06.2000 and from 09.06.2000 to 12.06.2000 respectively (loss of pay for 4 days). Petitioner voluntarily retired on the afternoon of 31.08.2000 as per the Proceedings of the Collector, Chennai in A2/22895/2000 dated 31.08.2000. 8. Provisional pension of Rs.49,844/- (at the rate of Rs.2,883/-from 9/2000 to 8/2001) and provisional DCRG of Rs.1,34,129/-was sanctioned by the Collector, Chennai vide Proceedings No.D1/32245/2001 dated 11.8.2001 and No.D1/7376/2001 dated 11.08.2001 respectively and paid to the Petitioner on 14.09.2001 through Cheque No.517366 (dated 14.09.2001) drawn on State Bank of India, Thousand Lights Branch. Petitioner was on deputation basis in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Egmore. Even then, the entire terminal benefits have been claimed by the office of the 2nd Respondent and paid to the Petitioner. 9. From the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader and from the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is seen that pension proposals of the Petitioner could not be finalised as there was some period of break in service which was not regularised. As a result of which, the increment due to the individual could not be sanctioned. The period of break in service from 1971 to 2000 has been elaborated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent. The Service Register of the Petitioner was sent to the 1st Respondent-Collectorate, Chennai for regularisation of the break in service. The delay in settlement of terminal benefits to the Petitioner was only due to break in service for various spells which had to be regularised. 10. As per Rule 69 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as regards payment of provisional pension and provisional DCRG, the department is the competent authority for making such payments. Provisional pension and provisional DCRG shall be paid not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of the qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government Servant. Payment of provisional pension depends upon the "basis of qualifying service". Qualifying service could be calculated only on regularisation of break in service for various spells. 11. Regularisation of break in service was done by the Collector, Chennai after verification which resulted delay in settling the terminal benefits. It was stated that the pay already fixed in the Assistant post has been objected by the Petitioner as incorrect and Petitioner requested revision of the same. 11. Regularisation of break in service was done by the Collector, Chennai after verification which resulted delay in settling the terminal benefits. It was stated that the pay already fixed in the Assistant post has been objected by the Petitioner as incorrect and Petitioner requested revision of the same. The 1st Respondent-Collector, Chennai had revised the pay fixation in Proceedings No.A2/57445/2000 dated 31.3.2001. Provisional pension and DCRG was sanctioned on 11.08.2001. Since there was break in service which had to be regularised, it resulted in administrative delay in sanctioning the provisional pension and DCRG. 12. Proposals for pensionary benefits was forwarded by the 1st Respondent-Collector, Chennai by letter No.D1/50630/01 dated 19.09.2002. On receipt of the proposals, pensionary benefits were authorised by the 3rd Respondent-Accountant General on 15.11.2002. According to the 3rd Respondent-Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, pension proposals being the basic input for issue of authorisation has been received by the 3rd Respondent on 04.10.2002 and authorisation for payment of pension, commutation and DCRG were issued by the Proceedings No.C 200618/REV dated 15.11.2002. As such, there is no delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent in issue of authorisation for payment pensionary benefits. 13. As per Sec.45-A of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, interest at the rate of 8% shall be payable or the DCRG paid beyond the period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant. In the instant case since the period of break in service has to be regularised, which resulted in delay in settling the terminal benefits. Getting the break in service regularised resulted in administrative delay, it cannot be said that there was belated payment of pensionary benefits warranting direction to pay interest. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.