WP/27380/2022 of L.Magilan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and disburse interest for the delayed disbursement of pensionary and retirement benefits, such as arrears of monthly pension, DCRG, commuted value of pension, encashment of earned leave and unearned leave, and Special Provident Fund, and also directing the third respondent to disburse the balance amount of Rs.82,114/- towards the balance in the GPF Account (Account No. FOR/14889), within a stipulated time frame.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was due to retire in 2014. Though this Court, in Crl.A.Nos.625 and 634 of 2016, acquitted the petitioner as early as on 19.01.2018, there was delay on the part of the respondents in settling the monthly pension, DCRG, commuted value of pension, encashment of earned leave and unearned leave, and Special Provident Fund. Such amount was subsequently settled after a prolonged delay of more than three years. Therefore, contended that the petitioner would be entitled for interest. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on account of the delay in payment of the amounts due to the petitioner, his right to life has been affected, thereby entitling him to claim interest on the delayed payments.

2.1. Apart from the above submissions, she would further submit that a sum of Rs.82,114/- remains outstanding in the GPF Account. She would also submit that, according to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the total amount to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.65,11,887/-, whereas he was paid only Rs.63,11,887/-, leaving a balance of Rs.2,00,000/- towards DCRG. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26685 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025. Hence, she prayed for allowing this Writ Petition.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would stoutly oppose the aforesaid contentions and submit that, since the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was not permitted to retire from service. Subsequently, this Court, in Crl.A.Nos.625 and 634 of 2016, by judgment dated 19.01.2018, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges. However, the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Nos.5751 and 5752 of 2019, which were also dismissed on

19.07.2022, thereby confirming the judgment passed by this Court.

3.1. The learned Government Advocate would further contend that, notwithstanding the pendency of the SLPs, the respondents issued an order permitting the petitioner to retire from service on 04.01.2021. It is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate that there was no abnormal delay on the part of the respondents and that, only on account of the pendency of the appeals preferred by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, there was some delay in issuing the relieving order. Such order was issued on 04.01.2021, and immediately thereafter, all the bills were submitted to the Treasury for disbursement of the amounts legally due to the petitioner.

4. In addition to the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that, even according to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, no amount remains due towards GPF and that the amount allegedly due pertains only to DCRG. In this regard, the petitioner has approached the competent gratuity authority. He would further submit that the petitioner has not sought any substantive relief for payment of the balance DCRG amount in the prayer, but has sought only interest on the DCRG amount. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that there was some delay in settling the terminal benefits of the petitioner. However, on a consideration of the factual position, it is evident that such delay was not deliberate but occurred on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30.04.2014. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the said date, which culminated in his conviction. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeals in 2016, which came to be disposed of on 19.01.2018. Therefore, this Court does not find any deliberate delay on the part of the respondents during the period from 2014 to 2018.

7. The next point for consideration is whether the delay subsequent to 2018 would entitle the petitioner to claim interest. In this regard, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department preferred SLPs challenging the order passed in the Criminal Appeals, which came to be dismissed on 19.07.2022. However, the respondent authorities issued the relieving order on 04.01.2021. The bills relating to DCRG were submitted to the Treasury on 06.05.2021, the bills relating to earned leave encashment were submitted on 20.01.2021, the bills relating to unearned leave on private affairs were submitted on 21.01.2021, and the bills relating to the Special Provident Fund were submitted on 27.05.2021. Therefore, this Court does not find any deliberate delay on the part of the respondents warranting the grant of interest in favour of the petitioner.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua’s case (cited supra). On a perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that an employee may be entitled to interest on delayed retirement benefits, notwithstanding the absence of an agreement providing for such interest, where the delay on the part of the Department is deliberate and affects the employee's right to life.

9. As discussed hereinabove, this Court has found that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner's claim for interest cannot be sustained. With regard to the petitioner's other claim relating to GPF, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an affidavit setting out the details of the amounts payable and paid to the petitioner. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:- Sl. No. Name of the item to be settled Amount (in Rs.) Due date for the

final settlement Retirement date

of individual Settled amount + month/year Remarks

Encahsment of unearned leave 2,10,546/- May 2014 30.04.2014 2,10,546/- (Jan 2021) Delay by 6 yrs 9 months

Encashment of earned leave 4,83,618/- May 2014 30.04.2014 4,83,618/- (Jan 2021) Delay by 6 yrs 9 months

Provisional pension arrear 22,47,433/- May 2014 to Jan 2021 30.04.2014 22,47,433/- (Jan 2021) Delay

in arithmetic progression

Special provident fund 31,964/- May 2014 30.04.2014 31,964/- (Apr 2021) Delay 6 years

Provisional DCRG 8,00,000/- May 2014 30.04.2014 8,00,000/- (Apr 2021) Delay 6 years

Refund of DA 1,40,222/- May 2014 30.04.2014 1,40,222/- (Apr 2026) 12 years delay

Commuted pension 5,43,426/- May 2014 30.04.2014 5,43,426/- (Aug 2026) 12 years delay

Pension arrear 18,54,426/- May 2014 30.04.2014 18,54,426/- (Aug 2026) 12 years delay in A.P. Settled 63,11,887/- 63,11,887/-

DCRG 2,00,000/- May 2014 30.04.2014 2,00,000/- DCRG 2 lakhs to be settled Total 65,11,887/-

10. As per the above calculation, the total amount to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.65,11,887/-. According to the petitioner, he has received a sum of Rs.63,11,887/-. The balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- pertains to DCRG. However, in the prayer, the petitioner has sought disbursement of the balance amount only in respect of GPF. As is evident from the affidavit filed by the petitioner, no amount remains outstanding towards GPF. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, in the absence of any deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in settling the terminal benefits, there are no grounds to direct the respondents to pay interest on the amounts already disbursed. Furthermore, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no amount remains due towards GPF. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the present Writ Petition.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

1. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of the Forest Department), Chennai- 600 015.

3. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 018.

4. The Chief Conservator of Forests State Forestry Research Institute, Kolapakkam, Chennai- 600 127.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 27380 of 2022 07-10-2026