Authorities directed to decide pending retiral-benefit proposal and disburse eligible dues within six weeks.

The petitioner, a retired Village Administrative Officer, was placed under suspension on 17 September 2003 in connection with a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

He was acquitted in Special C.C. No. 27 of 2014, and the appeal against acquittal was subsequently dismissed.

Although he attained the age of superannuation on 31 May 2018, he was not permitted to retire because the criminal appeal was pending.

In W.P. No. 38169 of 2024, the High Court directed the respondents to complete any pending disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Pursuant thereto, the second respondent regularised the petitioner’s suspension period from 16 September 2003 to 31 May 2018 as duty period by proceedings dated 5 February 2026.

The petitioner thereafter received ₹27,93,600 on 4 June 2026 during the pendency of W.P. No. 14590 of 2026, but claimed that interest for delayed payment, Special Grade and Super Grade benefits, Pongal Bonus, surrender-leave benefits and other consequential allowances remained unpaid.

His representation dated 3 August 2026 was not acted upon, leading to the present writ petition.

During the hearing, the respondents stated that a proposal dated 5 August 2026 had been submitted for releasing the eligible dues.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 3 August 2026 and take consequential steps for release of eligible pensionary and service-related dues, including Special Grade, Super Grade, bonus, surrender leave and other benefits

Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the exercise and disburse the eligible amounts within a prescribed time

The Court applied the principles governing issuance of a writ of mandamus, namely, that a public authority may be directed to consider and decide a pending representation or proposal and to perform its statutory and administrative obligations in accordance with law.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the petitioner’s entitlement to each disputed benefit; instead, it required the competent authority to determine eligibility and release the amounts found payable.

The earlier direction requiring completion of disciplinary proceedings and appropriate consequential action also formed part of the procedural background.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the order.

The petitioner’s suspension period had already been regularised as duty, and the respondents had acknowledged that further steps were required regarding the pending benefits.

The statement of the learned Special Government Pleader that a proposal dated 5 August 2026 had been submitted, but that action remained pending, demonstrated that the petitioner’s representation had not yet received a final administrative determination.

Since the respondents undertook to complete the process and release eligible amounts, the Court considered it unnecessary to retain the writ petition or determine the merits of each individual claim.

It therefore confined the relief to consideration of the proposal and representation in accordance with law, leaving eligibility and computation to the competent authority.

The first respondent was directed to consider the proposal dated 5 August 2026 and take necessary further steps for releasing the eligible amounts due to the petitioner, based on his representation dated 3 August 2026.

The authority was directed to pass appropriate orders and complete the entire exercise, including disbursement of eligible amounts, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from receipt of the order.

The Court did not itself declare the petitioner entitled to all the claimed benefits or interest.