Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
22. 04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.(MD)No.6507 of 2013 R.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Management of The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai ”
010. 2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region Bye-Pass Road, Madurai ”
010. 3.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Huse, Pallavan Salai, Chenni ”
002. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits including Leave Salary, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, Dearness Allowance payable to the petitioner along with monthly pension with reasonable rate of interest within the time that may be stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioners... Mr.A.Rahul ^For Respondents... Mr.A.Jayaram, for Transport :ORDER The petitioner was employed as a driver in the respondent corporation and he retired from service on 30.09.2011 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner states that his monthly pension is not paid and he was paid only the Provident Fund amount of Rs.2,06,058/-. It is also stated that he is not paid commutation of pension, gratuity and leave salary. He made a representation dated 03.12.2012 seeking for payment of the terminal benefits due to his retirement. But the terminal benefits are not paid. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the terminal benefits are not paid to the petitioner due to the financial crisis. It is also stated that not only the petitioner and other retirees also not paid the terminal benefits and they are standing in queue.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The respondent corporation is being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, they shall behave like a model employer and they cannot act arbitrarily. They should settle the terminal benefits at the earliest. After the retirement, the workman will not get salary and the only source for his survival is his terminal benefits.
5. Even as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Gratuity has to be paid immediately on the date of retirement, unless it is withheld for certain reasons, like departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retiring Government Servant. In the event of delay on payment of gratuity amount, Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, provides that interest shall be payable on the belated payment beyond a period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant. Similar provision is there in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Now more than one year has elapsed from the date of retirement of the petitioner, but still the terminal benefits are not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the plea of the 2nd respondent that the terminal benefits are not paid due to the financial crisis is not acceptable to this court. Non payment of terminal benefits amounts to deprivation of livelihood of the petitioner. On the aspect of interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits, it is relevant to extract few decisions:- (i) In Dr.Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438.the Supreme Court held that, "....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/Instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case." (ii) In S.K.Due v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44.the appellant therein, was served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in June 1998, few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.06.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, gratuity, etc. They were withheld till the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the absence of any statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 14 of the judgment, held as follows: "14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." (iii) In Vijay L.Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687.the Supreme Court held that all retirement benefits should be paid on the day of retirement or soon thereafter, if for some unforeseen circumstances the payment cannot be made on retirement day itself and further held that there was no reason or justification in this case for not making the payments for months together and awarded simple interest @ 18% from the date of retirement to the date of actual payments. (iv) Following the decisions cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and the District Collector, Erode Vs. M.Deivasigamani, reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 01.held that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines and that he can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. (v) Even though in M.Deivasigamani's case, the Division Bench of this court has held that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits and accordingly upheld the interest awarded by the learned single judge at the rate of 10% per annum for the belated payment of pension, commutation of pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits, following the said judgment a learned single Judge of this Court in an unreported decision in Mrs.K.E.Kadambadi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and water supply, Chennai, and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, (W.P.No.12350 of 2009 decided on 27.09.2010), considering the long delay of three years caused in disbursing the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner therein, has awarded 18% interest on the quantum of retiral benefits, as claimed by the petitioner therein.
6. In the light of the judicial pronouncements extracted supra, I am inclined to direct the 3rd respondent to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 10% within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Arul To 1.The Managing Director, Management of The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai ”
010. 2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region Bye-Pass Road, Madurai ”
010. 3.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Huse, Pallavan Salai, Chenni ”
002.