M VASANTHA RAJALAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 5th respondent/Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Roc No. 4597/06/T2-1, dated 27.03.2007, quash the same insofar as para-3 in respect of payment of interest and direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.m. for the following amounts:

(2.) In reply, learned Additional Government Pleader, by filing counter affidavit stated that, with his lengthy submissions, learned Senior Counsel has blown the issues out of proportion. In fact, the orders passed by this Court were implemented by disbursing to the petitioner leave salary of Rs. 71,231/- on 25.04.2007, her husband's suspension period from 20.11.1997 to 06.03.2000 was regularized with subsequent increments and Rs. 71,651/- was also paid on 21.08.2008. According to him, the petitioner has been paid with Rs. 2,30,112/- towards DCRG on 09.10.2006, Rs. 71,231/- towards Leave Salary on 25.04.2007 and Rs. 71,651/- on 21.08.2008 towards regularization of suspension period from 20.10.1997 to 08.03.2000 as duty period and further increments sanctioned for settlement of 50% remaining salary and subsequent increments. Therefore, the delay is neither wanton nor willful but it was only due to some administrative exigencies. By handing over a cheque for Rs. 4,154/- towards the incremental arrears for the period from 09.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 in the revised scale vide cheque No. 762600, dated 01.07.2013, drawn on Indian Bank, Dharmapuri Branch, which was also received with acknowledgment by the petitioner's counsel, learned Additional Government Pleader, after referring to the calculation sheet for payment of interest @ 12%, pointed out that now, the total sum against interest payable to the petitioner is calculated as Rs. 4,74,955/- and also Rs. 35,686/- towards Gratuity difference to regularization of suspension period from 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2013, and such calculation is also endorsed by the learned Senior Counsel as correct and in order. By admitting that there was some delay in disbursal on the part of some of the officials concerned and by submitting the list of Officers responsible for the delay and pointing out that some of those officer retired already, he left it open to this Court to pass suitable orders.

(3.) Mr. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel, at this juncture, by referring to Rule-9(2) (b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules would submit that even if the officers concerned responsible for the delay in processing the pension papers were allowed to retire from service, could not be proceeded against provided four years after the date of their retirement, such immunity cannot be enjoyed by any officer wherever orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court are flagrantly violated.