P NAGARATHNA PANDIAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 22.8.2005 and direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to disburse the arrears of leave salary, encashment of earned leave, Surrender leave, leave on private affairs, disbursement of retirement benefits such as DCRG, commuted value of pension, provident fund, special provident fund and pay 18% interest for the belated payment as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 5.3.1965 promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 13.6.1970 as Executive Engineer in the year 1977 and as Superintendent Engineer in the year 1994. THE petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.1998. He was not allowed to retire by passing an order of suspension on 28.11.1998 stating that while he was holding the post of General Manager (Technical) in the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation on deputation, a charge memo was issued on 18.11.1998 alleging that he rejected the tender submitted by the Government of India during the process of pre-qualification bid. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 2.12.1998 and denied the same. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved. THE Housing Board accepted the Enquiry Officer's report and passed a resolution on 27.11.2003 to drop the charge framed against the petitioner and also resolved to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.11.1998. THE Board resolution was sent to the Government for its approval. THE Government also granted approval through G.O.(1D)No.164 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.4.2004. THE Board by proceedings dated 25.5.2004 passed final orders and allowed the petitioner to retire from service from 30.11.1998 and also ordered that the period of suspension is to be treated as duty period.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.510 Finance (Pension) Department dated 27.6.1995 and ordered payment of interest for the belated payment of each retirement benefit. Apart from that even against a charged employee, the charges having been dropped, the Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana) and Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 (Government of T.N. v. Deivasigamani) ordered payment of interest and held that an employee is entitled to get interest on belated payment of pension and other terminal benefits even in the absence of statutory rules under Part III of the Constitution of India and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits.