GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M DEIVASIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the first respondent has challenged the order, dated 8.9.1995 passed by the District Collector, Periyar District, Erode and prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment of pension, commutation of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, Encashment of Earned leave, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund and pay fixation arrears. The said Original Application was subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 8707 of 2006. On contest, the learned single Judge, placing reliance on a decision in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1999 SC 1212: (1999) 3 SCC 438: (1999) 3 MLJ 29: 1999-I-LLJ-1335, wherein, it has been held that the pension is not a bounty, but right of a retired employee and the Government is obliged to initiate process for payment, according to time schedule, prescribed in the departmental rules, set aside the impugned order made in the writ petition, dated 8.9.1995, passed by the District and consequently, held that the first respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the belated payment of on pension, commutation of pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits.

(2.) ASSAILING the order made in the writ petition, Mr. A.A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the respondent was not permitted to retire, in view of the disciplinary proceedings, which was set aside only in the year 1992, though he was due to retire on 31.1.1987, on attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended that the though there are Government Orders enabling payment of interest on belated of DCRG, interest cannot be awarded in respect of pension, commutation of pension, Encashment of Earned Leave, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund and Pay Fixation arrears. He placed reliance on the second proviso to Rule 45-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu pension Rules.

(3.) IN Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. (supra), the Supreme Court held that at p. 32 of MLJ:'. 4. -..grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. IN cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/INstruction apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.'.