V. NACHAMMAL Vs. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the interest due to the petitioner for the period of delay in payment of gratuity.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was working as Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer of Vellakoil Union, Erode District and retired from service on 31.1.2004. After his retirement, he received a communication from the Office of the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu on 13.2.2004 for payment of gratuity. In the said communication, the post was wrongly mentioned as "District Educational Officer" instead of "District Elementary Educational Officer". Therefore, the gratuity could not be paid to the petitioner. When the rectification was made in the said order, on 21.6.2004, he received a letter from the Office of the Accountant General with a rectified order for payment of gratuity. Even after the receipt of the said communication, the District Treasury, Erode, did not pay the gratuity for the reason that they have not received a rectified order from the Office of the Accountant General. Thereafter, only in the month of February 2005, the petitioner received the Demand Draft for gratuity with a delay of 12 months from the date of retirement. According to the petitioner, the delay was not due to any mistake committed by him. Therefore, he made a representation to the first respondent on 4.3.2005 requesting him to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum for nine months amounting to Rs.17,021/ . The petitioner further stated that he is entitled for payment of interest as per G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance (pension) Department, dated 29.2.1995 as modified by the G.O.Ms.No.173, Finance (pension) Department, dated 1.4.2004. Even after receipt of the said representation, the petitioner was not paid the interest. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner got retirement from service on 31.1.2004. Further, his gratuity came to be disbursed only on 8.2.2005 with a delay of 12 months. It is seen that the delay had occurred only due to the mistake committed by the authorities by wrongly mentioning the post of the petitioner as "District Educational Officer" instead of "District Elementary Educational Officer". The mistake committed by the authorities, which has resulted in payment gratuity with a delay of 12 months, cannot be attributed on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, causing such a delay would entitled him to receive the interest as per the above stated G.Os.