S. CHELLAMMAL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the Family Pension, Gratuity and other benefits to the petitioners as she is the sole legal heir of her deceased husband S.S. Subramanian, with interest at 24% per annum from 5 -3 -1983 i.e., the date of death of her husband.

(2.) Petitioner's husband S.S. Subramanian, was working as Headmaster in the sixth respondent school - -Chitra Primary School, Kallidaikurichi, Tirunelveli District. On 5 -3 -1983 he died leaving his wife, the petitioner herein, as his sole legal heir. After the death of her husband the petitioner filed an application claiming for retirement benefits, family pension, gratuity and the same was refused on the ground that the second wife of the deceased S.S. Subramanian, one Pechiammal had a rival claim. A suit was filed by the second wife of the deceased in O.S.No.421 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, claiming half share in the Family Pension, Provident Fund etc. The District Munsif, Ambasamudram, ordered one half of the retirement benefits to be paid to the said Pechiammal on compassionate grounds. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner in A.S.No.78 of 1986 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi. The Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, by judgment dated 8 -1 -1988 set aside the order of the trial Court and declared the writ petitioner as the sole heir entitled to get the retirement benefits. In spite of the decree passed by the Civil Court, the retirement benefits were not given to the petitioner. The petitioner has made number of representations to the authorities concerned, in spite of that she was not able to get the family pension, gratuity etc. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

(3.) Subsequently, the District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi at Tirunelveli, by order dated 10 -02 -1995 has sanctioned the family pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the amount due and payable to her from 5 -3 -1983 to 10 -02 -1995 for the delay caused in the payment of retirement benefits. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that since there was a dispute between the petitioner and the second wife of the deceased as to who is the person entitled to get the retirement benefits, the Government could not disburse the amount and therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Government in the disbursement of the retirement benefits to the petitioner. Even though this argument looks acceptable, there are no valid explanation by the Government Pleader for the delay in payment of the retirement benefits after the Civil Court decree dated 8 -1 -1988. There is no justification for the non -payment of the retirement benefits to the petitioner after 8 -1 -1988. The first respondent is duty bound to pay the interest for the amount due and payable to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems fit that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest on the retirement benefits due and payable to her at the rate of 12% p.a. from 8 -1 -1988 till 10 -02 -1995. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the interest on the retirement benefits due and payable to the petitioner at the rate of 12% p.a. from 8 -1 -1988 to 10 -02 -1995, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.