P.Marimuthu. Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[vinod k.sharma, j.] - constitution of india - article 226 -- the petitioner after retirement made number of representation for settlement of the retiral dues of the petitioner, but till date no dues have been settled.the case of the petitioner is that along with the petitioner there were other eight persons involved in the vigilance enquiry.  there is no justification with the respondent to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner.consequently, this writ petition is allowed. the petitioner shall also entitled to interest @ 9% on the dues payable to the petitioner from the due date till payment. writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to settle the terminal benefits like gratuity, leave salary in revised scale with 12% interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner.vinod k.sharma, j.order1. the petitioner was appointed as chief sugar chemist in tamil nadu sugar corporation ltd. on 01.04.1991.  the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1997 without prejudice to the outcome of the enquiry by the directorate of vigilance and anti corruption in the proceedings no.7433/90/e2 dated 29.06.1997. the petitioner after retirement made number of representation for settlement of the retiral dues of the petitioner, but till date no dues have been settled.2. the case of the petitioner is that along with the petitioner there were other eight persons involved in the vigilance enquiry.  the enquiry against eight persons stood completed. the details of the action taken against each person are reproduced below:3. the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the action of the respondent in not releasing the retiral benefits, primarily on the ground that after the petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining superannuation, it was not open to the respondent to either hold any departmental enquiry or take action against the petitioner, as no order of retention of the petitioner in service or order of suspension was passed.4. once an employee was allowed to retire from service without retaining him in service in exercise of powers under f.r.56, it is not open to the respondent to hold enquiry or withhold retiral benefits of the petitioner.5. admittedly, there is no order of retention of the petitioner in service by placing him under suspension. there is no justification with the respondent to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner.6. consequently, this writ petition is allowed.  a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondent to settle the retiral benefits of the petitioner within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. vinod k.sharma,j.7 the petitioner shall also entitled to interest @ 9% on the dues payable to the petitioner from the due date till payment. no cost.