The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking interest on delayed payment of Teachers Provident Fund. The court held that the respondent failed to pay the due amount within two months of retirement and directed payment of interest at 7% along with costs.
Respondent directed to pay interest at 7% on Rs.4,07,202/- within two weeks and costs of Rs.10,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.17431 of 2008
J.Dhanusu ...Petitioner Vs
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mayilam Block at Kooteripattu, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, Pin Code 604 302. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner on the belated payment of Rs.4,07,202/- under the Teacher Provident Fund for the period from 01.07.2007 to 17.06.2008 at the admissible rate.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj For Respondents : K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate.
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner on the belated payment of Rs.4,07,202/- under the Teacher Provident Fund for the period from 01.07.2007 to 17.06.2008 at the admissible rate.
the date of retirement of a Government Servant, provided that on and from 12th June 1987, the rate of such interest shall be 7% p.a. beyond a period of three months and up to one year and 10% p.a. beyond a period of one year. But in the present case, since the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2007 and a sum of Rs.4,07,202/- which is due to the petitioner under the Teachers Provident Fund was paid to him only on 17.06.2008 with a delay of one year as per Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the respondent is liable to pay interest at 7% p.a. on Rs.4,07,202/-.
''[45-A. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity:
[(1) Interest at the rate of eight percent 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 percent per annum beyond a period of three months and upto one year; and
(b) ten percent per annum beyond a period of one year.
*''Provided further that on and from 20th February 1995, the rate of such interest shall be twelve percent per annum (compounded annually):
Provided also t hat on and from 1st April 2004, the rate of such interest shall be at the rate of interest payable, on General Provident Fund during the year of retirement of the Government servant (compounded annually):
Provided also that''.
''16. Let me now consider some of the decisions, in support of the relief sought for in the writ petition, i.e. payment of interest.
(i) In Dr.Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, the Supreme Court held that,
''...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 case.''
(ii) In Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686, the appellant therein retired from service on 31st August 1997. The retiral benefits, such as, GPF, GIS, Encashment of Leave, Arrears of Pay, Gratuity and Commuted value of
Pension, were paid long after she retired. Observing t hat in case of an employee, retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payments 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondent therein to pay to the retired employee, interest at the rate of 18% on the belated payment from the date of retirement, till the actual payment was made.'
of Rs.10,000/- to be paid along with the interest to the petitioner.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mayilam Block at Kooteripattu, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, Pin Code 604 302. +1cc to Mr.P.Rajendran, Advocate, S.R.No.20456 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.80524 W.P.No.17431 of 2008 KS(CO) RRS(09/04/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is liable to pay interest on the belated payment of Teachers Provident Fund due to a one-year delay.
Whether Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 mandates payment of interest at 7% per annum when gratuity is paid beyond one year from retirement.
Whether the respondent should be directed to pay interest and costs for the delay in retirement benefit payment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & another vs. E. ManickamRelied on¶14
W.A.No.1272/2017
Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶30
Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1999) 3 SCC 438 · Who else cites this
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P.Relied on¶34
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. 2000 (2) SLR 686
2 provisions across 1 enactments
J. Dhanusu
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mayilam Block
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
