Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2398 (MAD)

V. Vijayamareeswari v. State of Tamil Nadu

2013-07-10

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The issue lies in a narrow compass. Hence the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner joined as Junior Instructor in Electronics during the year 1975. He got various promotions. He was also promoted as Polytechnic Principal on 26.9.2012 before his retirement on 30.9.2012. He retired from service on 30.9.2012 on reaching the age of superannuation. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pension proposal was not sent by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent for authorisation. 5. When he approached the 2nd respondent, he was orally stated that 'No Due Certificate' has to be obtained from the concerned Polytechnic Principal and thereafter only, the proposal should be forwarded. 6. He made several representations to the Principal of the Polytechnic to give him 'No Due Certificate'. He was given 'No Due Certificate' by the Chief Accounts Officer, Guindy, Chennai, dated 20.5.2013. Likewise, the Principal, Government Women Polytechnic College, Madurai-11 issued a 'No Due Certificate' on 27.5.2013. He produced the same to the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent for the reasons best known to him has not sent the pension proposal to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner made a representation dated 11.3.2013 to the 2nd respondent to send his pension proposal of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the Principal, Govern$ment Polytechnic College, Karur sent a letter in Lr.No.760/B1/2013 dated 3.6.2013 to the 2nd respondent enclosing the 'No Due Certificate' and also giving the following details which are extracted here under : “TAMIL” 7. In spite of the same, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not sent the pension proposal to the 3rd respondent for authorisation. Hence, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to sanction his terminal benefits including pension with interest with effect from 31.12.2012. 8. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 2nd respondent could be directed to send the pension proposal to the 3rd respondent within a stipulated period along with interest i.e. payable as per a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 . 9. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 . 9. The aforesaid letter dated 3.6.2013 of the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Karur makes it clear that there is no reason for not sending the proposal for pension of the petitioner, when he retired from service on 30.9.2012 and though he retired from service 8 months back, so far, his pension proposal is not sent to the Accountant General. Hence, prima facie I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest as per the rules. 10. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to send the pension proposal to the 3rd respondent, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent shall pay interest for the delayed settlement of terminal benefits as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 . The 3rd respondent is directed to authorise pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of three weeks after the receipt of the proposal from the 2nd respondent. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.