L.GOPALAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse forthwith interest amount to the rate of 12% per annum from 31.10.2000 till 30.11.2008 for the DCRG amount of Rs. 2,24,516. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner retired as Administrative Officer on 31.10.2000 from the office of the Director of Agriculture, Chennai on attaining the age of superannuation as per the orders dated 30.10.2000. He is having unblemished record of service of more than 38 years. A No-Charge Certificate dated 27.12.2000 addressed to the Pension Payment Officer, Chennai, was also issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that only after the continuous struggle and representations and by issuing lawyer's notice, the petitioner has been disbursed with the DCRG amount of Rs. 2,24,516/- on 01.12.2008 by way of cheque dated 01.12.2008. It is contended that in view such belated payment of the DCRG, the petitioner is entitled to claim the interest for the belated payment. Learned counsel would contend that an employer shall arrange to pay the gratuity within a period of 30 days and if there is any delay, they are liable to pay interest as per the provision u/s. 7[3] and 7[3-A] of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is contended that the said provisions are mandatory. It is further contended that the contention of the respondents to the effect that the amount of Rs. 34394/- has been paid in excess to the petitioner by way of wrong pay fixation is unacceptable. It is pointed out that the respondents have overlooked the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dated 19.01.2001 to the effect of fixation of pay scale as well as to the effect of directing the authorities not to withhold or recover any amount from the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the statement made in the counter is not correct as the petitioner has not received any excess amount. Learned counsel would further contend that there is absolutely no fault on the side of the petitioner for such an inordinate delay of 8 years for disbursing the DCRG amount and the respondents have not given any explanation for such delay in the counter filed before this court. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to claim interest @ 12% per annum for the period from 31.10.2000 to 30.11.2008.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the DCRG amount. It is submitted that a detailed counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent herein explaining the reasons for delay in disbursing the DCRG amount. She would further contend that due to the wrong fixation of the pay made to the petitioner on par with his junior, an amount of Rs. 34,394/- was paid in excess to the petitioner and the said amount is due from him to the Government from 1995. Therefore, the question of sanctioning interest for the belated payment of the DCRG amount does not arise.