01Facts
The respondent’s retirement benefits were withheld while criminal and departmental proceedings were pending.
pp. 5–6After his acquittal on appeal, the disciplinary proceedings were dropped and he was permitted to retire on 27 July 2016, without prejudice to proceedings under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1975.
pp. 5–6No effective steps were taken under that rule, and pensionary arrears were paid on 27 September 2022.
pp. 5–6On the respondent’s writ petition, the Single Judge directed the State to examine whether the delay was justified and whether interest was payable.
p. 2The State appealed, contending that the benefits had been paid when the respondent became eligible and that no interest was due.
p. 302Issues
i.Whether the Single Judge’s direction required payment of interest, and whether the respondent could claim interest at 18% despite the order specifying no rate.
p. 2, 6ii.Whether, and for what period, the respondent was entitled to interest on delayed pensionary benefits.
pp. 6–703Law Applied
The Court considered Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1975, under which departmental proceedings may continue after retirement in the circumstances described by the rule.
p. 6It also applied the principle that interest may be awarded where delayed payment of retirement benefits is attributable to the Government and lacks plausible justification.
p. 6The judgment cited no precedent and did not identify a statutory rate of interest; the 6% rate was applied by reference to the interest already paid for delayed payment of DCRG.
p. 604Reasoning
The Single Judge’s order directed an inquiry into the reasons for delay; it did not mandate payment of interest at 18%, and the respondent could not derive that rate from his own prayer.
p. 6The Court accepted that withholding benefits while the respondent was under suspension at superannuation was justified.
p. 5However, after he was permitted to retire on 27 July 2016, no effective steps were taken to proceed against him under Rule 9(2), and the pensionary arrears were not paid until 27 September 2022.
p. 6The Court therefore found the outright denial of interest unreasonable and concluded that the delay was attributable in part to the appellants and in part to the respondent.
pp. 5–6It fixed interest at 6%, consistent with the rate paid on delayed DCRG.
p. 605Holding
The appeal was disposed of with a clarification of the Single Judge’s order.
p. 7The appellants were directed to pay the respondent interest at 6% on the delayed pensionary benefits for the period from 27 July 2016 to 27 September 2022.
p. 7The Dean, Stanley Medical College, was directed to make payment within six weeks of receiving the judgment.
p. 7The connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.
p. 7Original Court PDF
The SecretaryvsS S Soundararajan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
