The petitioner is the wife of deceased P.Santhanam, who was an employee of of the Deputy Director of Health Services. The petitioner's husband died while he was in service on 25.02.2001, who had been working from 11.11.1967. On the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner produced the death certificate as well as the legal heir certificate claiming the death cum retirement benefits due and payable to her on the death of her husband. In spite of production of legal heir certificate, the authorities directed her to produce the succession certificate. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, in S.O.P.No.15 of 2002 and obtained a succession certificate on 05.01.2004 and this was also produced to the authorities concerned. Even after the production of the succession certificate, by a letter dated 17.06.2004, the respondents stated that the claim of the petitioner could be considered only if a specific order is issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu as to the validity of the customary divorce of the first wife by the deceased Government servant through custom prevailing in the village and that the details of names and date of birth of children of both the wives, may be sent with the documentary evidence.
2. In view of the stand taken by the Department, the petitioner while filing the Succession O.P., impleaded the first wife Valli and also two persons who are the witnesses and signatories to the divorce of the first wife. As they did not make any objections, ultimately, the Court granted the succession certificate. Therefore, in the succession O.P, the first wife who was duly divorced, was a party and only after that, they have obtained the succession certificate. The petitioner would also contend that even in the Service Register of the first respondent, the name of the petitioner is stated as the legal heir of the deceased husband and the deceased had already informed wayback in the year 1980 regarding the divorce of the first wife. In spite of bringing forth all details and also the succession certificate as early as on 05.01.2004, by a letter dated 17.06.2004, they did not make the payment of the death cum retirement benefits. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The petitioner claimed the death cum retirement benefits, gratuity benefit of Rs.2,73,372/- in the credit of P.Santhanam, the deceased husband of the petitioner herein and the family monthly pension of Rs.2,938/- from 25.02.2001 to till date including the future pension benefit to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit pending the writ petition, in which after filing of the writ petition, the second respondent paid the gratuity on 25.08.2006 and also issued an order of payment of family pension with arrears on 16.06.2006, but he would only claim that the second respondent delayed the payment from 26.02.2001 till 24.08.2006 and hence, the petitioner prayed for payment of interest for the belated payment.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which is as follows:
"45-A. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity-
(1) Interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum shall be payable on the death-cum-retirement gratuity paid beyond (a) period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant.
Provided that on and from the 12th June 1987, the rate of such interest shall be as follows:
(a) seven per cent per annum beyond a period of three months and upto one year; and
(b) ten per cent per annum beyond a period of one year:
Provided further that no such interest shall be payable,-
(a) where the institution of departmental or judicial proceeding against the retiring Government Servant concerned is pending; and
(b) for the fraction of a month."
6. Therefore, he now confines his prayer only seeking for interest for the delayed payment of death cum retirement benefits.
7. Though the learned Counsel for the second respondent did not file any counter, he also brought to the notice that as per the affidavit, the entire amount due and payable has been paid and the petitioner also got the monthly family pension.
8. The learned Government Advocate also produced a circular dated 07.09.1987 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu to all Departments, that for the payment of interest on the delayed payment of death cum retirement benefits, gratuity, no specific authorisation from the Accountant General is necessary.
9. Heard both sides.
10. Taking into consideration the subsequent development in this case that the death cum retirement benefits have been paid and the pension is also being paid regularly and as far as the original claim made by the petitioner is completely fulfilled by the second respondent, the same is recorded. The petitioner has also accepted the same by way of an affidavit. But, insofar as the petitioner's request for payment of interest in view of inordinate delay in paying the death cum retirement benefits, that too, when the petitioner had originally produced the legal heir certificate long back in the year 2001 itself and thereafter, as per the request of the authorities concerned, the petitioner had produced the succession certificate through Court, impleading the first wife who has been divorced also and the said certificate was also produced to the authorities concerned in the month of June 2004. After the production of the said certificate, they have again sent another communication dated 17.06.2004 stating that separate Government Order is required. Thereafter, they have not communicated further, but delayed the matter without paying the retirement benefits totally.
11. After making representations, ultimately, the writ petitioners has filed this writ petition in the month of September 2005. Even after the filing of the writ petition in September 2005, though they have not chosen to file any counter, they paid the amount only on 24.08.2006, nearly about an year after the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner, hence, would contend that though he is not entitled for interest from the date of death, at least from the date when the petitioner has submitted her legal heir certificate and succession certificate from the competent Court in the year 2004 and definitely, the delay in payment of retirement benefits upto the year 2006 is without any basis and hence, relying upon Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which would categorically state that interest should be payable on the death cum retirement gratuity paid beyond a period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant and if it is paid beyond one year at the rate of 10% under clause (b) to Rule 45-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is therefore under law, he is entitled to interest for the delay in payment of gratuity and retirement benefits.
12. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the second respondent fairly brought to the notice of this Court the Government letter dated 07.09.1987, which would categorically state that no separate sanction is necessary by the Department. On the strength of the sanction accorded by the Departments of Secretariat, interest may be worked out by the Department and a bill presented to the concerned Treasury/Pay and Accounts Office for the drawal and payment to the pensioners in respect of interest. Even as per the said letter of the Government, it is very clear that the delay in payment of death cum retirement benefits and gratuity, definitely the petitioners are entitled for interest.
13. In this case, as stated supra, even the alleged technical dispute in regard to the legal heirship which was ultimately settled by the Court by the grant of succession certificate, definitely the Government is liable to pay interest from the date when the succession certificate was duly submitted for perusal and approval by the petitioner to the Government. Succession certificate is dated 05.01.2004 and it was submitted to the Department immediately. Therefore, under law, the Department is liable to pay interest on the entire amount till the date of payment i.e on 24.08.2006. In this connection, I am also guided by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay L.Mehrotra v. State of U.P reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 687, wherein it is held as follows:
"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.
4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent, with effect from the date of her retirement (i.e) 31.08.1997 till the date of payments."
14. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay interest from 17.06.2004 to 24.08.2006 at the rate of 10% per annum for the entire death cum retirement benefits payable to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The date of 17.06.2004 is reckoned as per reply dated 17.06.2004 after the receipt of the succession certificate from the petitioner concerned.
15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that entire amount of death cum retirement benefits has been received except the interest and the authorities are directed to pay interest on the death cum retirement benefits from 17.06.2004 to 24.08.2006 at the rate of 10% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb To
1.The Deputy Director of Health Services, Vishwanathapuram, Madurai - 625 014.
2.The Principal Accountant General(AE), Office of the Principal Accountant General(AE), Anna Salai, Chennai - 18.