R.VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in C. No. D2/742/2014 dated 06. 05. 2014 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to pay the interest on the retirement benefits which was paid belatedly.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in R. S. Mangalam Police Station, he was placed under suspension on the ground of pendency of criminal case filed against him and pursuant to the acquittal in the criminal case, suspension was revoked. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the 1st respondent to treat the suspension period as duty period in view of the acquittal in the criminal case and since it was not considered, he filed W. P(MD)No. 8451 of 2008 to consider his representation which was disposed of on 14. 12. 2009 directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, but the 1st respondent did not pass any order. While so, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.1.2011 on reaching the age of superannuation and thereafter, when the petitioner's pension proposal was under progress, the 1st respondent passed G. O(D)No. 646 dated 6.7.2011 setting aside the above punishment and also ordered to treat the period of suspension as duty period. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent revised his pay and treated the suspension period as duty period. According to the petitioner, there was a delay in disbursing the retirement benefits for more than 23 months and therefore, he made a representation dated 6.2.2014 claiming interest and therefor, he also filed W. P(MD)No. 3434 of 2013 which was disposed of on 28.2.2014 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's claim of interest for the belated settlement of his retirement benefits.

(3.) It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 06. 05. 2014 stating that if the petitioner did not submit the request for keeping his pension proposal pending till the order from the 1st respondent, retirement benefits would have been settled immediately. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the 1st respondent passed the above G. O. , the 2nd respondent disbursed the retirement benefits after 15 months as such, the reasoning in the impugned order is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687, Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U. P and others. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order.