Partly allowed

V.Radhigha v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Aug 2023WP/12696/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought interest on delayed gratuity and leave encashment. The court noted that the second respondent had already ordered the drawing of interest at 8% but the petitioner claimed 12% under Tamilnadu Pension Rules. The court allowed the petitioner to challenge the interest calculation and directed the respondent to disburse the interest within

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to claim interest; directed to disburse interest within four weeks of receipt of copy of order.

V.Radhigha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶7

V.Radhigha ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 2.The District Collector, Salem

¶10

3.The Principal Accountant Generl(A.E), O/o.Accountant General, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018 ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at applicable rates for the delayed sanctioning and payment of encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs and DCRG/Gratuity to the petitioner for the period from 01.02.2009 to 15.11.2011 and pay the same to the petitioner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gajendran

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶16

For Respondents

¶17

For R1 & 2 : Mr.M.Muthusamy, Government Advocate

¶18

For R3 : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the

¶21

respondents to pay interest at applicable rates for the delayed sanctioning and payment of encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs and gratuity for the period from 01.02.2009 to 15.11.2011.

¶22

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶23

While pending the writ petition, the second respondent by

¶24

order dated 19.03.2022, ordered to draw and disburse the interest for the belated payment of death cum retirement gratuity to the petitioner herein. The said claim was billed and it requires fund allotment to sanction the bill. By the communication dated 22.03.2022, it was requested from the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration for allotment of these amounts of Rs.1,00,602/-. After receipt of the said amount, it will be disbursed to the petitioner.

¶25

2/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶29

second respondent calculated interest at the rate of 8% per annum. However, the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% as per Rule 45-A of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978.

¶30

Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to claim interest, if she

¶31

is aggrieved over the order passed by the second respondent in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that the second respondent is directed to disburse the interest amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

17.08.2023

¶35

Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶36

3/4

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶39

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶40

lok

¶41

¶42

1.Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

¶43

2.The District Collector,

¶44

Salem

¶45

3.The Principal Accountant Generl(A.E), O/o.Accountant General, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018

¶46

4. The Government Advoate, High Court, Madras.

¶47

W.P.No.12696 of 2012

¶48

17.08.2023

¶49

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Radhigha v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Radhigha v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Dr.T.Iyappan Vs Government of Tamilnadu

K.Iraivan, Mandappam, Vs the Presiding Officer

Mrs. Roselin Metilda Vs the Director of Teacher

The Chennai Metropolitan Vs the Chennai Metro Politan

B.S.Sujatha Vs the Chairman

A.Rajasekar, Vs Union of India