Heard Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as typist on 03.04.1985 in the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department. He was promoted as Assistant on 01.08.1990 and further he was promoted as Superintendent on 21.10.2002. While working as Superintendent, the petitioner was on leave without permission from 01.04.2009 to 30.03.2011, for which he was issued with charge sheet under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules for the unauthorized absence. On completion of the Disciplinary Action, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of censure on 18.01.2012.
3. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner stood retired from service on 29.02.2012. On the retirement of the petitioner in February 2012 his pension proposals were forwarded to competent Authority, however that no action was taken for disbursing the retirement benefits to the petitioner including the pension. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a representation on 28.05.2014, but inspite of receipt of the representation till date no part of the retirement benefit or pension has been settled to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel, Mr.Ravi Shanmugam appearing for the petitioner would submit that for no reasons the retirement benefits including pension has been with held. As no criminal or departmental action is pending against the petitioner and therefore the non-disbursement of the retirement benefits including pension to the petitioner for all these years is contrary to Rules and Law.
5. Upon notice Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader entered appearance and filed counter affidavit.
6. In the counter affidavit, in paragraph 4, it is stated that due to fire accident on 16.01.2012 many documents and valuables which were kept in the building were destroyed. The petitioner's files relating to petitioner's service details was one of the documents found destroyed in the fire accident. Because of the accident the respondents were unable to compute the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner.
7. It is further stated in the same paragraph that, subsequently, all the relevant documents were collected from various offices and revised proposals have been sent to the Government from the Commissionarate on 31.10.2015 and that the Government is taking further steps to pass appropriate orders on the proposal.
8. From the above it could be seen that even after revised proposal sent as early as on 31.10.2015, no prompt action has been taken for settlement of retirement benefits and the pension payable to the petitioner. It is now more than 5 years since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service and on no fault of the petitioner the retirement benefits and pension payable to him has not been setted and disbursed.
9. Needless to mention that the Government Servant on his retirement is fully dependent on their retirement and pension benefits for their sustenance after the retirement. If the retirement benefits is not settled at the appropriate time it will result in undue and extreme hardship to the petitioner and his family members who are as stated above dependent on the retirement benefits and monthly pension.
10. Though initially the Government cannot be faulted for disbursement of the retirement benefits due to the fire accident, but, subsequently, when the files were re-constructed and revised proposal was sent there was a further delay of more than 2 years. Cumulatively, there is a delay of more than 5 years from the date when the petitioner stood retired in February 2012.
11. In any event it has to be seen from the perspective of the employee that once employee stood retired his retirement benefits cannot be withheld without any valid or lawful reasons, no matter whatever be the circumstances.
12. Though learned Special Government Pleader pleaded that it was an act of God, neverthless the act of God cannot result in merciless situation by denying the retirement benefits which are admittedly and otherwise due to the petitioner. The Government has enough resources for compensating the Government servants on retirement and by stating the fire accident the Government cannot deny its responsibility for making the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner.
13. In fact, the Government ought to have made some provisional payments on his retirement to the petitioner pending recovery of files relating to his service details. But, however, for reasons best known to the Government the same has not been done. In the above circumstances this Court has no hesitation in allowing the Writ petition.
14. While holding so the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw the Court's attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1, in which the Division Bench has held that the employees are entitled to claim interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits.
15. The division bench has taken such a view on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the operative portion of the judgment is as found in paragraph 5 and 7 are extracted below :
“6. In Dr.Uma Agarwal V. State of U.P. (supra), the Supreme Court held that at p.32 of MLJ;
"4. ... grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/ Instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each cases."
7. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/ administrative instructions or guidelines and he can make his claim for interest, under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
16. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner including arrears of pension etc., and continue to pay pension as admissible. The disbursement of the retirement benefits and the arrears of pension shall carry interest at the rate of 10% from the date it become payable and till the date of actual payment. The said direction shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of three months. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.09.2017 dsa Index : yes/No Internet : Yes/No To
1. The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Director of Social Welfare, No.58, Arunachalam Street, Chintadripet, Chennai - 2.
V.PARTHIBAN,J.
dsa W.P.No.22492 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 14.09.2017