M FRANCIS Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, after his retirement has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 14.01.1999 of the third respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest for the belated disbursement of pensionary benefits. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 40003 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner contended that he retired from service on 30.11.1997 as Headmaster and he was re-employed from 01.12.1997 to 31.05.1998. Prior to his retirement, he submitted his pension papers on 13.05.1997. For rectification of certain defects, the pension papers were returned to him on 13.06.1997 and it was re-submitted by him on 10.09.1997. Even after lapse of seven months of his retirement, the pension has not been sanctioned to him. THE petitioner was also not paid the re-employment pay from 01.12.1997 to 31.05.1999. Further, the petitioner's Special Provident Fund ought to have been encashed on 01.12.1997, but it was sanctioned only on 20.04.1998 i.e., after five months of his retirement. In other words, the petitioner's pensionary benefits were paid to him belatedly. According to the petitioner, the commutation was paid on 03.08.1998 instead of 01.12.1997 pension for eight months was paid on 03.08.1998 instead of 31.12.1997 onwards. Gratuity was paid on 27.08.1998 instead of 01.12.1997 the re-employment pay ought to have been paid to him on 30.12.1997, but it was paid only on 23.09.1998. THErefore, there is an inordinate delay in disbursement of retirement benefits when he had put in his pension papers as early as on 13.05.1997. Under normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have disbursed the retirement benefits within 90 days, but in the case of the petitoner there was an enormous delay in disbursing the terminal benefits. This delay is not on the part of the petitioner, hence, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, he claimed interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.01.1999. In the impugned order, in para-3, it was categorically admitted that there was a delay on the part of the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil. THErefore, under law, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest for the delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the retirement benefits especially when there is an admission in the impugned order itself.

(3.) IN this context, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and another vs. M. Deivasigamani (2009 3 MLJ (Volume 242) Madras Page No.1 has categorically stated that an employee is entitled to claim interest for belated payment of pension and other terminal benefits even in the absence of Statutory Rule, Administrative INstruction or Guideline, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of INdia. IN Para No.6, it was held thus:-