B. THIRUMOORTHY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer at the Kalayarpatti Panjayat, was transferred to Aruppukottai on 16.11.1998. On receipt of the transfer orders and after being relieved from Kalayarpatti, the petitioner went on medical leave and while he was on medical leave, the District Collector, Virudhunagar, by order, dated 08.02.1999 placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry in certain charges. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 4303 of 1999. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A., on 11.08.1999, thereafter the petitioner joined duty at Madurai on 23.10.1999. No Departmental action was taken against the petitioner for the delinquencies alleged in the order of suspension, dated 08.02.1999.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner was awarded selection Grade and he retired on attaining superannuation in the year 2004. However, the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the period of suspension, i.e., from 08.01999 to 210.1999. The petitioner had made several representations to the various authorities and after prolonged correspondence and delay, the Superintending Engineer, Madurai directed payment of salary for the suspension period, i.e., from 08.01999 to 210.1999 to the petitioner on 30.09.2010. The petitioner has claimed interest for the delayed payment of salary and sent his representations dated 04.03.2011 and 03.10.2011. Since there was no response, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD).No.13641 of 2011 seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the authorities to consider his request for payment of interest for the delayed payment of salary. This Court by order, dated 04.07.2013, directed the authorities to consider the request of the petitioner for interest in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(3.) Pursuant to the said direction, the request of the petitioner was rejected on 08.11.2013 by the second respondent. Challenging the rejection, the petitioner is before this Court. The only reason that has been given for the rejection of the petitioner's claim is that there is no specific Rule in the Service Rules, which enables payment of interest for the delayed disbursal of salary.