Allowed

S.Raman v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Feb 2015WP/732/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a retired Assistant Divisional Engineer, sought interest on belated payments of retirement benefits including DCRG, gratuity, leave encashment, and pension arrears. The Court, noting that withholding dues attracts a claim for interest, directed the respondent to pay interest at 9% per annum within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pay interest at 9% per annum for belated payment of retirement benefits within three months.

S.Raman Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURDE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 19.02.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN

W.P.No.732 of 2015

S.Raman

... Petitioner

vs.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Highways Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2. The Director General, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5 ... Respondents

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the interest for the retiral benefits from the date of due to the date of actual payment, viz., Rs.3,22,031/- (Rupees three lakh twenty two thousand thirty one only) towards DCRG from 01.12.2004 to 23.02.2014; Rs.21,380/- (Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred and eighty only) towards special provident fund Gratuity from 01.12.2004 to 01.12.2013; Rs.2,29,086/(Rupees two lakh twnety nine thousand eighty six only) towards encashment of Earned and Unearned leave from 01.12.2004 to 01.12.2013; Rs.2,56,814/- (Rupees two lakh fifty six thousand eight hundred fourteen only) towards commutation of pension from 01.12.2004 to 10.04.2014 and Rs.5,12,921/- (Rupees Five lakh twelve thousand nine hundred and twenty one only)towards the arrears of pension from 1/12/04 to 10/4/2014 at a rate as may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan For respondents : Mr.Roofus Abraham,G.A. ORDER

¶12

The petitioner worked as Assistant Divisional Engineer and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31.08.2004. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not paid the statutory

¶13

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

¶14

benefits within a reasonable period. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 3.9.2014, requesting the first respondent to pay interest on account of such belated payment. The present request is to direct the first respondent to pay interest.

¶15

It is trite that in case an authority has kept the amount payable to an employee unreasonably, he is entitled to get interest for the belated payment. The petitioner has given details of the payments made to him and the delay caused in paying such amount. The petitioner is therefore perfectly correct in his contention that he is entitled to get interest from the first respondent.

¶16

The Supreme Court in D.D.Tewari (D) Through Lrs. vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (9) Scale 78, indicated that in case the amount due to the employee is withheld, the same would give rise to a claim for payment of interest. The Supreme Court in the subject case, found that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount and therefore, a direction was issued to give interest @ 9% from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order dated 21.02.2013, in support of his contention that under similar circumstances, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent has paid interest to the petitioner therein.

¶18

The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, granting interest to the petitioner for belated payment, at the rate of 9% per annum. The payment should be made as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/-

Asst. Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar.

MSK

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

¶26

¶27

The Secretary, Highways Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶28

The Director General, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5

¶29

+1cc to Mr.N.Subramaniyan, Advocate, S.R.No.9330 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9455

¶30

W.P.No.732 of 2015
KK(CO)
CA(03/03/2015)

¶31

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

S.Raman v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Raman v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Lakshmanan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Anandan, Vs The Commissioner

G.Padmanabhan Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

T.Sathishkumar, Vs the District Collector

M.Ayyappan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu