D.A. JOYSON SETHURAJ Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TUTICORIN TRUST, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, TUTICORIN TRUST, TUTICORIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% per annum from 01.03.2003 till 07.09.2009, on the retirement benefits of Rs.7,50,447.00 settled belatedly.

(2.) The petitioner retired from service from the respondent Port on 28.02.2003. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to which, before the date of superannuation, on 28.02.2003, the petitioner was served with charges on 25.02.2003. Though the petitioner, subsequently, was allowed to retire by proceedings dated 27.02.2003, by a subsequent proceeding dated 13.03.2003, the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner would continue, even after the retirement of the petitioner as per Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to proceed against the petitioner departmentally. Challenging the said disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 34185 of 2003 before the Principal Bench of this Court to quash the said proceedings dated 25.02.2003, whereby the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and also the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.07.2003 appointing an Enquiry Officer. The said petition was admitted and a stay was granted.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, by proceeding dated 08.07.2009, the petitioner was intimated that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was dropped. The said developments were brought to the notice of this Court in the said writ proceedings in W.P. No. 34185/2003 and this Court, by order dated 07.08.2009, recorded the same and disposed of the writ petition, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue, if any claim left out for the petitioner. Thereafter, the said retirement benefits, as calculated and reflected in the order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.07.2009, was settled to the petitioner on 07.09.2009. For the said belated payment of the retirement benefits to the petitioner, as the same, according to the petitioner, could have been paid to him, if the said disciplinary proceedings ought not been initiated against him even at the time of superannuation of the petitioner, ie., on 28.02.2003. Therefore, from the period between 01.03.2003 till the date of payment ie., 07.09.2009, the petitioner is entitled for interest and in order to claim the interest, the petitioner, even though, had requested the respondents, the same was not paid and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.