M SUBBAIAN Vs. COMMISSIONER KUMBAKONAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was employed as a Revenue Assistant/Bill Collector in the first respondent Municipality and retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 30.06.1995. At the time of retirement, his retirement benefits were not settled and the gratuity amount of Rs.46,591.25 was withheld. He has filed O.A.No.6652 of 1997, challenging the order withholding the gratuity, dated 24.02.1997 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, which was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.31936 of 2005 and the said writ petition was allowed on 24.02.2006. THEreafter, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to disburse the amount of Rs.46,591.25, being the gratuity amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.06.1995 and in spite of his several representations, the amount has not been paid. After many representations, the respondents along with the letter dated 10.07.2006, have sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.46,591.25 drawn on the City Union Bank Limited. THE petitioner has claimed interest for the period of non-payment of gratuity from 30.06.1995 to 10.07.2006 and since the same has not been paid, the present writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.46,591.25 from 30.06.1995 to 10.07.2006.

(2.) IT is seen that when the Director of Municipal Administration, viz., the second respondent has passed an order on 24.02.1997, retaining the gratuity amount of Rs.46,591.25 due to the petitioner, this Court in the order dated 24.02.2006, has set aside the said order by allowing the writ petition. In spite of the same, the amount was not paid. IT is seen that only after the legal notice was issued enclosing the copy of the order, on 27.03.2006 the Municipality has chosen to send a cheque for the said amount on 10.07.2006. There is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the delay between 30.06.1995 to 10.07.2006.

(3.) THE contention of Mr.K. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Municipality that the retention was due to the reason that during the service, the petitioner as a Bill Collector, has not collected the amount due to the Municipality by way of property tax, in spite of the circular having been issued, which empowers for the retention of 30% of the amount representing the DCRG. On the other hand, it is not the submission of the learned counsel for the Municipality that the petitioner was not allowed to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Admittedly, there are no disciplinary proceedings pending. THE further contention that G.O.Ms.No.122 is not applicable to the facts of the present case is also not tenable. Under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,1978, Rule 45A which deals with interest on delayed payment of gratuity, is as follows: