Dismissed

The Commissioner, v. v. Chandramohan

Madras HC4 Mar 2014WA(MD)/371/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation challenging a lower court order mandating payment of pension arrears with interest. The Court held that statutory rules require advance preparation of retirement benefit documents, and failure to comply attracts interest.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed, no costs awarded, connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Commissioner, Vs v. Chandramohan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶3

Writ Appeal (MD) No.371 of 2014

¶4

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai ... Appellant/Respondent

¶5

V.Chandramohan

¶6

Vs. ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶7

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.03.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.11067 of 2010 on the file of this Court.

¶8

Prayer in WP(MD). 11067/ 2010 :

¶9

Praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to settle Petitioner terminal benefits and pension arrears in total to the tune of Rs. 7,49,602/- with interest at the rate of 12% until payment.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. M.Jothi Basu For Respondent : Mr.M.Jothi Basu

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶13

The Madurai City Municipal Corporation has come up with the above writ appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Judge directing the settlement of the entire terminal benefits and pensionary arrears to the writ petitioner within a period of six weeks with interest at 9%.

¶14

2.There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.11.2008. There is also no dispute about the fact that the service benefits were settled only on 20.04.2011. In other words, the retirement benefits were settled upon the first respondent only after a period about 20 months. Therefore, the learned Judge was compelled to direct payment of interest on the amount at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the award of interest, the Corporation has come up with the above writ appeal.

¶15

3.The main ground on which the Corporation has challenged the order of the learned Judge is that there are 3700 employees working in the Corporation and that nearly about 100 employees attain superannuation every year. The appellant claims that they are spending about Rs.140 Crores towards salary for the employees and for payment of retirement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefits. Therefore, the appellant claims that the learned Judge ought not to have awarded interest.

¶16

4.But we are hardly convinced with the reasons stated by the appellant. Even the statutory rules issued in exercise of the powers

¶17

¶18

conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in respect of Government servants prescribe the award of interest upon belated settlement of terminal benefits such as gratuity. The service benefits to which an employee is entitled are not mere bounties. They are payable in

¶19

terms of the statutory rules and the rules stipulate that the papers for settlement of service benefits will have to be prepared in advance and circulated at least 3 to 6 months before the intended date of retirement. Therefore, failure to settle the terminal benefits immediately upon retirement, automatically, invites the consequence of award of interest. Hence, we see no legally valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To.

¶25

The Commissioner,Madurai Corporation,Madurai

¶26

TS/14.03.2014/1P-2C

¶27

Writ Appeal (MD) No.371 of 2014

¶28

04.03.2014

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Commissioner, v. v. Chandramohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, v. v. Chandramohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ramesh, Vs the District Collector

C.Sendrayan, Vs the Tasmac Manager

Minor. Suresh Kumar Vs the Tahsildar

The Commissioner, Vs R. Venkatramani

Tamil Nadu Generation and Vs Sundaram Industries Limited

The Principal Secretary to Vs P.Saravanakumar