V.RAJARAJESWARI vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 19523 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011234882024}
V.Rajarajeswari
W/o.K.Nagaraj,
th
Plot No.12, 4 Main Road,
VGN Mahalakshmi Nagar, Perumalagaram,
Thiruverkadu, Chennai-600 077.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Principal Secretary To Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board, III Floor,
Dr.MGR Centenary Building, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai-06.
3. The Principal Accountant General (tamil Nadu)
O/o.The Principal Accountant General
AG’s Office Complex, 361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-18.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
st
impugned Letter issued by the 1 Respondent in Letter No.301/Pa.Ka.1(1)/
2024-1 dated 18.06.2024 and to quash the same and consequently, directing the
respondents to pay interest for the belated settlement of Earned Leave,
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
Unearned Leave for Private Affairs and Commutation, at the rate of 12 percent
per annum from the date of retirement till date of payment within a time frame
to be fixed by this Honble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Sankaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent(s): Ms.Y.Kavitha
Additional Government Pleader for R1.
Mr.V.Stalin
Standing Counsel (TRB) for R2
Mr.P.Manorajan
Standing Counsel for R3
*
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated
st
18.06.2024 issued by the 1 Respondent.
2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and
the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit
that the date of superannuation of the petitioner is on 31.07.2018. However, on
that day, he was suspended and he was not permitted to retire from service.
Subsequently, on 09.01.2023, a final order was passed dropping the charge
against the petitioner and on the same day vide G.O.(1D) No.2, School
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
Education Department, a Revocation of suspension order was passed and he
was permitted to retire from service on reaching the date of superannuation on
31.07.2018. It is his submission that there was a huge delay in settling his
terminal benefits. Though the respondent had settled the interest only with
respect to the gratuity, in respect to the other amount they did not pay interest
on the ground that there is no statutory necessity to pay the interest. The learned
Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in
S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and
the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu
and another Vs. M.Deivasigamani [Writ Appeal No. 886 of 2007 dated
17.12.2008 . Hence, pray to allow the writ petition.
4. Per contra , the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TRB and
the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that as per the
statutory mandate, there is only a necessity to pay interest with respect to
DCRG and in the case in hand, the petitioner was permitted to retire only during
2023 and immediately after the said order, within a short span of time, the
petitioner's terminal benefits had been settled. Therefore, the question of
granting interest does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side's submissions.
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
6.The short point to be considered in the present writ petition is that,
notwithstanding the fact that the permission for retirement granted on account of
the disciplinary proceeding on a subsequent date, can the petitioner be entitled
to have terminal benefits with interest from date of his superannuation?.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua’s case [cited supra], wherein the
Honorable Supreme Court in Para 14 has observed 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 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.”
7.According to the above ruling, notwithstanding any reference in the
Statute, since the terminal benefits is not a bounty and would be termed as a
property, the petitioner is entitled to have a claim for interest under Part III of
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment in
M.Deivasigamani’s case [cited supra], wherein in a similar circumstance, if the
delinquent is kept in service even after his date of superannuation and
subsequently, if the disciplinary proceeding ended in dropping all the charges,
then though the permissions for retirement was granted on a later date, the
petitioner is entitled to have terminal benefits with interest from date of his
superannuation. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract
Para 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment in M.Deivasigamani ’s case [cited supra]:-
“ 4 . Pleadings disclose that the first respondent was due to retire
on 31.01.1987, on attaining the age of superannuation. But, he
was not allowed to retire on that day, on account of pending
charges. On completion of the enquiry, he was dismissed from
service in and by the proceedings of the District Collector,
Periyar District, dated 03.09.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
for Revenue Administration, Madras, which was rejected on
06.11.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the Government on 22.12.1988. Since no orders were
passed by the Government, the petitioner was constrained to file
O.A.No.943 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, Madras for a direction, directing the Government to
pass orders on his appeal. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal,
dated 17.02.1992, the Government, by its order in G.O. (2D)
No.123 Revenue Department dated 18.11.1992, have set aside the
order of dismissal and allowed the petitioner to retire from
service. Though the respondent has preferred the statutory
appeal in the year 1998, the Government have taken nearly four
years to pass orders on the appeal. Though, the Government have
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
passed orders in 1992, exonerating him from the charges and
allowed him to retire, pensionary and other benefits have been
granted only in the year 1994, after two years. The District
Collector, Erode, by impugned order, dated 18.11.1992, has
disallowed interest for the belated payment of pension,
Commutation of pension and other retiral benefits. However, he
had recommended to the Government for sanction of interest
amount of Rs.10,381/- for the belated payment of DCRG made to
the first respondent, based on the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.517, Finance (Pension), dated 12.06.1987 and
G.O.Ms.No.818, Finance (Pension), dated 01.12.1988.
Subsequently, G.O.(D) No.192, dated 13.04.2007, has been
passed, sanctioning payment of Rs.11,890/-, towards interest on
belated payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity. But for the
disciplinary action and erroneous dismissal, in normal course,
the respondent would have retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation and granted pension and other retiral
benefits.
5 . 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."
6 . The contention of the appellant that as per the Government
norms, interest can be paid only on Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity, in case of delay and the same cannot be awarded to any
other retiral benefits, is not tenable, in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in S.K.Due v. State of Haryana reported in 2008
(3) SCC 44. In the reported case, the appellant therein was
served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in June 1998,
few days before his retirement. However, he retired on
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
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."
8.In the above ratio, in a similar circumstance, the Division Bench has
held that notwithstanding the subsequent date of permissions for retirement,
since the disciplinary proceeding ended, relieving the delinquent from all the
charges, he is entitled to have interest from date of his superannuation. Even in
the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings ended relieving the petitioner from
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
all charges. Therefore, this Court finds all justifications to interfere with the
impugned order dated 18.06.2024 and the first respondent is directed to settle
the interest for the belated payment of Earned Leave, Unearned Leave for
Private Affairs and Commutation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
his retirement of payment till its actual payment. The above such interest is
directed to be paid within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Order.
9.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
11-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Principal Secretary To Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board, III Floor, Dr.MGR Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-06.
3. The Principal Accountant General (Tamil Nadu)
O/o.The Principal Accountant General AG’S Office Complex,
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4519
WP No. 19523 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
KMI
WP No. 19523 of 2024
11-11-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )