R.PERIYASAMY vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012051672024}
WP No. 33785 of 2024
1. R.Periyasamy
2. V.Ramalingeswara Gupta
3. P.Atchuttaramaiah
4. Karakavalasa Venkata Rao
5. D.S. Prasannakumar Dutt
6. V.Prasada Rao
7. A. Demudu Babu
8. M. Thomas
9. T. Simmachalam
..petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary - Food Ministry of
Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department of
Food and Public Distribution,
Krishi Bhawan, New Dlehi 110 001.
2. The Director (Police II and FC III)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
3. The Regional Director (Food) South Zone
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India,
Office of The Executive Director (South) Food
Corporation of India Southern Region,
No 3, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
4. The Pay and Accounts Officer (Food), (South)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Shashtri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 33790 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012051682024}
1. P.M. Jayalakshmi
2. Vempada Yellayamma
3. B.Sara Bharathi
..petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary - Food Ministry of
Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department of
Food and Public Distribution,
Krishi Bhawan, New Dlehi 110 001.
2. The Director (Police II and FC III)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
3. The Regional Director (Food) South Zone
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India,
Office of The Executive Director (South) Food
Corporation of India Southern Region,
No 3, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
4. The Pay and Accounts Officer (Food), (South)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Shashtri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 33785 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the interest at
the rate of 9 percent per annum for the central dearness allowance paid to the
petitioners from 10.02.2010 till the date of realization as per the direction of the
Honble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 10.02.2010 passed in
Civil appeals No. 238 - 44 of 2004 batch of cases reported in 2010 (12)SCC
405.
WP No. 33790 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the interest at
the rate of 9 percent per annum for the central dearness allowance paid to the
petitioners from 10.02.2010 till the date
For petitioners(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.K.Manikandan
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
For Respondent(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.B.Sudhirkumar,
Senior Panel Counsel
COMMON ORDER
The present Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the difference in Dearness Allowance payable to the petitioners from
10.02.2010 till the date of realisation, in terms of the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. P.N. Natarajan , reported
in (2010) 12 SCC 405.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that,
under the Food Corporation of India Act, the petitioners are entitled to the IDA
pay scale and terminal benefits. In this regard, a dispute arose between the
Union of India and the employees of the Food Corporation of India, which was
ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.N. Natarajan's case
(cited supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
Food Corporation of India to release the amounts payable to all the employees
who had exercised their options in terms of Section 12-A(4)(a) and (b), read
with Section 12-A (4-C) of the Food Corporation of India Act.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
2.1. The learned counsel would further contend that, despite the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents failed to settle the
difference in Dearness Allowance within the stipulated period and disbursed the
amount to the petitioners only on 28.11.2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
directed the respondents to settle the amount within a period of three months
from the date of the judgment, namely, 10.02.2010. It was further directed that,
in the event of delay in payment, the respondents would be liable to pay interest
at the rate of 9% per annum. However, in the present case, the amount was
settled only on 28.11.2019, much beyond the period stipulated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of
9% per annum in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned
Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents and would submit that,
immediately after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents
issued a notification dated 15.10.2010, calling upon similarly placed employees
to submit their claims and representations. However, the petitioners did not
submit any claim pursuant to the said notification. Subsequently, pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.35827 of 2015 etc. batch, dated
01.10.2018, the respondents decided to settle the amounts payable to all
similarly placed employees. Therefore, the delay in settling the amounts was not
attributable to any fault on the part of the respondents but was occasioned by the
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
petitioners' failure to exercise their option by submitting their claims in response
to the notification dated 15.10.2010. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim interest
by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3.1. Alternatively, the learned Senior Panel Counsel would rely upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.219 of 2020, wherein
interest was directed to be paid only from 01.01.2016. Therefore, even if this
Court were to conclude that the petitioners are entitled to interest, such interest
ought to be restricted to the period commencing from 01.01.2016. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petitions.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side.
5. There is no serious dispute with regard to the entitlement of the
petitioners to the IDA pay scale in the Food Corporation of India. It is an
admitted fact that, in P.N. Natarajan's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that any memorandum of settlement should not adversely affect the
options exercised by the employees of the Food Corporation of India in terms of
Section 12-A(4)(a) and (b), read with Section 12-A (4-C) of the Food
Corporation of India Act. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.N. Natarajan's case (cited supra)
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
are extracted hereunder:-
“21. Even if the memorandum of settlement is held
applicable to other employees of the Corporation, the same
cannot adversely affect the option exercised by the private
respondents in terms of Sections 12-A(4)(a) and (b) read with
Section 12-A(4-C) of the Act. It has neither been suggested on
behalf of the appellants nor can it be laid down as a proposition
of law that the bipartite settlement arrived at between the Unions
of the employees and the management of the Corporation could
take away the right acquired by the respondents as a sequel to
exercise of option in terms of Section 12-A(4)(b).
22. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by
Shri Srivastava has no bearing on the issue raised in these
appeals because in that case the Court was not called upon to
decide whether the Central Government can pass an order or
issue a directive adversely affecting the statutory option
exercised by the employees.
23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the
private respondents shall get costs of Rs. 10,000 from the
appellants.
24. Since the appeals have been dismissed, the authorities
concerned are directed to release the amount payable to the
respondents and other similarly situated persons within a
period of three months from today, else they shall have to
pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.”
6. According to the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directed the respondents to settle the amounts payable not only
to the petitioners therein but also to all similarly placed employees within a
period of three months. In the present case, admittedly, the amounts payable to
the petitioners were not disbursed within the period of three months stipulated
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amounts were ultimately disbursed to the
petitioners only on 28.11.2019.
7. Though the petitioners seek interest in terms of the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court from May 2010, the learned Senior Panel Counsel
appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the
notification dated 15.10.2010, whereby the respondents called upon the
employees who had opted for the IDA pay scale in the Food Corporation of
India to submit their claims or representations. Relying upon the said
notification, the learned Senior Panel Counsel would contend that, since the
petitioners did not submit their claims, they are not entitled to interest.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that,
subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a batch of Writ
Petitions came to be filed before this Court in W.P.Nos.35827 of 2015 etc.
batch. By an order dated 01.10.2018, the learned Single Judge extended the
benefit to all similarly placed employees, irrespective of whether they had
submitted any claim or representation. It was only pursuant to the said order that
the respondents decided to disburse the amounts payable to all similarly placed
employees. Therefore, the petitioners contend that their entitlement to interest
cannot be defeated merely on the ground that they had not submitted individual
claims or representations.
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are
entitled to interest on the delayed payment and, if so, the period from which
such interest is payable.
10. In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to settle the
amounts payable to all similarly placed employees within a period of three
months. Admittedly, the amounts payable to the petitioners were not settled
within the stipulated period. Though the learned Senior Panel Counsel relies
upon the notification dated 15.10.2010, this Court is of the firm view that the
mere issuance of a notification and the failure of the petitioners to submit their
claims or representations would not, by themselves, nullify the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the
petitioners are similarly placed as the employees who were before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the reported case and are entitled to the same benefits.
11. In view of the above factual position, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum in
terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, as
rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Panel Counsel, in a subsequent order,
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
this Court, taking into consideration the considerable delay and the need to
safeguard the public exchequer against further financial burden, restricted the
period for which interest was payable to the period commencing from
01.01.2016. The said order was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.219 of 2020, by judgment dated 13.02.2024. For ready
reference, paragraph 4 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“The only dispute is with regard to the date on which the
appellant had made his claim. The learned Single Judge while
dealing with the Writ Petition, had taken into account the
representation made by the appellant and other persons before
him, as to have been made in the year 2015 and therefore, the
learned Single Judge had held that they would be entitled for
interest only from 01.01.2016.”
12. In view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court and the conclusion reached by this Court regarding the petitioners'
entitlement to interest at the rate of 9% per annum, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petitions by directing the respondents
to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amounts already disbursed to
the petitioners towards the difference in Dearness Allowance, for the period
commencing from 01.01.2016 till the date of it’s actual disbursement. The
above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
13. In the result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.
26-10-2026
2/2
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary - Food Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Krishi Bhawan, New Dlehi 110 001.
2. The Director (Police II and FC III)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Regional Director (Food) South Zone
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,
Office of The Executive Director (South) Food Corporation of India
Southern Region,
No 3, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
4. The Pay and Accounts Officer (Food), (South)
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Food and Public Distribution, Shashtri Bhavan,
Chennai 600 006.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )
2026:MHC:4337
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP Nos. 33785 and 33790 of 2024
26-10-2026
2/2
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:18:27 pm )