PROFESSOR P RADHAKRISHNAN TRIVENI APARTMENTS Vs. MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES; DIRECTOR, MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,; SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT; SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 10.09.2012, rejecting the claim for interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the terminal benefits from the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. 31.10.2009 to the actual date of disbursement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined the Madras Institute of Development Studies, on 01.11.1982 as a permanent faculty member. After putting in 27 years of continuous service, the petitioner retired from service as a professor on 31.10.2009. It has been further submitted that on the date of his retirement i.e. on 31.10.2009, the respondent department did not come forward to settle the terminal benefits subject to the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission which came into force on 1.1.2006 as the same was also accepted by the Tamil Nadu Government.

(3.) Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioner was paid with a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards gratuity on the date of retirement viz., 31.10.2009, he was not paid with the gratuity arrears of Rs.6.5 lakhs even after, furnishing all the relevant government documents. Therefore, the non-payment of the enhanced level of gratuity will entail the petitioner to get interest on the belated payment. On the date of retirement i.e. on 31.10.2009, a sum of Rs.2,45,304/- payment towards leave encashment was paid and a sum of Rs.4,84,200/- was paid on 2.11.2011 with the delay of 24 months and 2 days. Again, another sum of Rs.1,30,837/- was paid towards leave encashment on 08.12.2011 with the further delay of 25 months and 9 days. On 29.3.2012 a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs of gratuity was paid after a period of 28 months and 21 days, hence, the second respondent is liable to pay both gratuity amount and also the leave encashment on the date the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. Admittedly, there was a huge delay in disbursing the gratuity and also leave encashment, and hence the second respondent is liable to pay interest on the above mentioned belated payment @ 18% per annum on the terminal benefit from the date of superannuation till the actual date of disbursement. Therefore, the petitioner made a detailed representation, in view of the inordinate delay in payment of gratuity. But, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's request for payment of interest by the impugned order on the delayed payment of gratuity. Even though the courts have been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the government, but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement should be viewed seriously, the respondent without application of mind rejecting the payment of interest has passed the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside, she pleaded.