REGISTRAR TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs. K BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-employee, who was in the services of the appellants-Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), superannuated on 30. 6. 1992. The Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as 'the DCRG'), having been withheld on the ground that certain amounts be recovered from him, as some of the books were missing, the respondent-employee preferred Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1998.

(2.) THE learned single Judge, by order dated 7. 3. 2002, while holding that the respondent-Writ Petitioner is entitled to the DCRG amount along with other retiral benefits, after deducting a sum of Rs. 18,297/-, directed the appellants-University to pay interest @ 6% per annum on such dues from the date of retirement till the date of payment of the amount due to him. The University has challenged the order of the learned single Judge in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) THE very fact of the case is that the respondent-Writ Petitioner was initially appointed on 2. 12. 1961 in the erstwhile Agricultural College and Research Institute, which was subsequently converted into University. The respondent was absorbed in the services of the University and was appointed as Deputy Librarian in the year 1976 and as Librarian from 1982. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was relieved from the post with effect from 30. 6. 1992. On retirement, the third appellant-Controller of the University instructed the second appellant-Dean (Agriculture) of the University to disburse the DCRG after physical verification of the library books. The second appellant-Dean thereafter, vide communication dated 4. 6. 1993, directed the respondent-Writ Petitioner to go over to the Library to trace out the missing books, which according to the University, were 13,394 in number, of a value of Rs. 6,59,077/ -. On subsequent verification at different stages, part of missing books were traced and finally, the second appellant-Dean of the University, by his letter dated 4. 10. 1996, asked the third appellant-Controller of the University to disburse the DCRG after deducting a sum of Rs. 18,297/-, which was the value of the books taken by the respondent-Writ Petitioner on loan. Inspite of such order of the second appellant-Dean, the respondent-Writ Petitioner, not having been paid the DCRG amount, requested the authorities to pay it after deducting a sum of Rs,18,297/-, but having failed to get the relief, had to move before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1998.