The High Quash orders rejecting interest claims and direct payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits, including gratuity, pension, and GPF.
Quashed orders rejecting interest; directed respondents to pay interest at 6% p.a. from 28.02.2005 to 04.07.2014 and disburse the amount within four weeks.
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.
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 02.02.2023 Pronounced on 16.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
C.Krishnan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Na. Ka. No.250/2005/A1 dated 15.11.2017 passed by the second respondent and consequential order bearing Letter No. Letter No.34588/ gz -7(1)/2017-2 dated 21.02.2018 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. From 28.02.2005 to 04.07.2014 to the petitioner on the belated payment of retirement benefits such as gratuity, GPF, Pension, Encashment of earned leave and pay fixation arrears etc.
1/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Ramdass For Respondents : Mr. K.H.Ravikumar, GA
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Ramdass, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
benefits was paid to the petitioner on 04.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 24.10.2014, seeking for interest on the belated payment of his retirement benefits and since there was no response, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No.1435 of 2015. By an order dated 02.08.2017, his representation was directed to be considered in accordance with law. In accordance with the direction of this Court, the second respondent had rejected the petitioner's representation on 15.11.2017, which was confirmed by the first respondent on 21.02.2018. Both these orders are put under challenge in the present Writ Petition with the consequential prayer to award interest on the belated payment on the retirement benefits.
rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Administration, Chennai and 3 Others passed in W.A.3162 of 2019 in the following manner:
“... (v) A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development and Ors. Vs. S.Venkatachalam and
3/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
Ors. reported in (2019) 1 MLJ 1, has observed as follows:
"12. It is well known that pension is not a bounty, but, is deferred wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and against deprecated the action of the Government in delaying release of pension. It is now settled that even if the pension rules do not provide for grant of interest, Writ Court is not powerless to grant interest on the delay in payment of pension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Others {MANU/SC/7048/2008 : 2008 (3) SCC 44}, has observed as under:-
"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the filed, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines, or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But
4/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
13. It is to be noted that this judgment was passed, when the High Court refused to grant interest, on the belated payment of retiral benefits, on the ground that there was no provision in the Pension Rules, permitting grant of interest for belated pension. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to this case.
14. In fact, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another Vs.
5/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
M.Deivasigamani {2009 (3) MLJ 1}, wherein one of us (Mr. Justice S.Manikumar), is a party, has granted interest, on delayed payment of pension.?"
20. Giving due consideration to the several grounds raised, we are of the view that right of a government servant, to receive pensionary and retirement benefits, at the earliest, should be given priority, vis-a-vis, the interests of the government. Disbursement of both cannot be withheld, from the date of entitlement, causing prejudice to the rights of a government servant. In the light of the discussion and decisions, we hold that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to interest on the belated disbursement of pension and terminal benefits.”
against the petitioner was quashed by a learned Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench, on appeal, had upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, by holding the action of the respondents as illegal, in the following manner:
“8.In the present case on hand, though enquiry was ordered against the respondent on 22.03.2005, till the date of filing of the writ petition, no final order is passed against him. When we have specifically ordered to report to
6/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
this Court by 14.08.2012 as to the stage of the enquiry, and even after granting adjournment by seven times, the Additional Government Pleader is not able to report the stage of the enquiry. Therefore, in those circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent / petitioner are considered to be illegal and accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge in quashing the order of suspension as well as the order not permitting the respondent/petitioner to retire from service, dated 28.02.2005 and also the charge memo, dated 22.03.2005.”
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
annum from 28.02.2005 to 04.07.2014 and thereby, disburse the amount to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.02.2023
Internet : Yes Order : Speaking Neutral Citation : Yes
DP
8/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
To
9/10
W.P.No.21681 of 2018
M.S.RAMESH,J.
DP
ORDER MADE IN W.P.No.21681 of 2018
16.02.2023
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant is entitled to interest on belated payment of terminal benefits despite absence of specific statutory provisions.
Whether the High Court can grant interest on delayed pension payments under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution when no rules permit it.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation regarding interest on belated retirement benefits is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development and Ors. vs. S.Venkatachalam and Ors.Referred¶30
Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development and Ors. Vs. S.Venkatachalam and Ors. reported in (2019) 1 MLJ 1
S.K.Dua Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶31
S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Others {MANU/SC/7048/2008 : 2008 (3) SCC 44} · Who else cites this
M.Suceela Bai Vs. The Government of Tamil NaduReferred¶23
M.Suceela Bai Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Administration, Chennai and 3 Others passed in W.A.3162 of 2019
Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M.DeivasigamaniReferred¶37
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another vs. M.Deivasigamani {2009 (3) MLJ 1}
C.Krishnan
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem – 636 001
M.S.Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
