WA(MD)/1068/2021 of S.SURIYA NARAYANAN Vs THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEG on 5 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is on appeal before us. The second respondent college is an aided institution. The appellant served in the second respondent college as Principal. He retired on 31.07.2008. However, his pension was disbursed only in the year 2011. His DCRG and other benefits were also not settled. Hence, he filed W.P.(MD)No.15358 of 2013. The writ petition was disposed of with certain directions on 19.08.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the management filed W.A.(MD)No.2295 of 2013. The writ appeal was dismissed on 12.12.2013. Eventually, the petitioner's DCRG and other benefits were settled. Since interest was not paid, the appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.16899 of 2016. The writ petition was dismissed on 26.02.2021. Assailing the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent sought time.

3. We are not inclined to accede to the said request because the burden, if at all, would only fall only on the management and not on the department. The second respondent college has been served and its name has been printed in the cause list. They have, however, not chosen to enter appearance. We, therefore, propose to dispose of this appeal by going through the materials on record.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the following terms:- “5.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a writ petition for a direction to the respondents to pay 18% of interest to him, on the belated payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits. It is true that the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the belated payment as per the Statute. However, in the present case, on an earlier occasion, the very same petitioner has approached this Court for the very same relief, wherein, this Court did not order for any payment of interest for the above said benefits and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the terminal benefits were settled in favour of the petitioner. Again, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the very same relief. Further, it appears that the pension proposal has been sent only after the filing of the contempt petition. Hence, the petitioner cannot attribute any reason for the belated payment against the Official respondents. Hence, the prayer sought for in the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil forum.” We substantially agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. When the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.15358 2013, it contained the following prayer:- “Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to disburse the terminal benefits namely, gratuity, Earned Leave Surrender, Leave on private affairs and special provident fund of the petitioner with 18% p.a interest.” The prayer had two parts. The first part pertained to disbursement of terminal benefits and the second part pertained to grant of interest. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

6. In these circumstances, taking into account the fact that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2008 Itself and the fact that he was not paid DCRG for the past six years, the following directions are issued:-

i) The third respondent is directed to send the expired authorisation to the 4 respondent to pass a fresh order revalidating the authorisation within a period of two days.

ii) On receipt of the same, the 4th respondent is directed to revalidate the authorisation for DCRG and send back the same to the third respondent within a period of three days.

iii) The third respondent is directed to send the papers to the Sub-Treasury, Madural and the Sub-Treasury is directed to pay the amount to the petitioner based on the above direction.

iv) The 5th respondent is directed to send proposals relating to Earned Leave Surrender, Leave on private affairs and special Provident Fund of the petitioner payable to the petitioner to the third respondent within a period of four weeks. The third respondent is directed to pass orders granting Earned Leave Surrender, Leave on private affairs and special Provident Fund within a period of two weeks thereafter.”

5. It is relevant to note that even though the prayer for interest was made, the order eventually passed did not contain any direction for granting interest. Explanation V to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:- “Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have been refused.”

The above Rule embodies the doctrine of res judicata. Even though the appellant prayed for interest on the earlier occasion also, it was not granted. We should therefore take it that it was refused. Hence, the present writ petition stands barred by the principle of res judicata.

6. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Pasayat (as His Lordship then was) in Gaya Prasad Bhoi vs Loknath Budhia Bhoi, AIR 1996 Ori 44 in the context of civil proceedings. It was a case where the petitioners had filed an application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act with a combined prayer for revocation of the succession certificate issued in favour of their rival claimants and issuance of one in their favour. The Civil Judge therein negatived the prayer for revocation but did not render any finding regarding the claim of grant of certificate in their favour. On appeal, it was held by the District Judge that the appeal was not maintainable since it did not come within the ambit of Section 384 of the Act. This was challenged by way of revision. His Lordship held that when the prayer is a combined one, and one part of the prayer has not been considered specifically, the only conclusion possible is that the prayer has been rejected by application of the principle contained in Section 11, Explanation V of CPC. It is well settled that principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings (vide Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. V State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715).

7. At the same time, we cannot ignore one vital fact. WP(MD)No. 15358 of 2013 was disposed of on 19.08.2013. If the directions given in the said writ petition had been enforced, the appellant's terminal benefits including DCRG would have been settled by 01.10.2013 itself. However, it was the management which went on appeal. Even though the writ appeal was dismissed on 12.12.2013, proposals were not submitted immediately. The appellant's DCRG was settled only on 24.12.2014 and 18.01.2016. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to interest for the period between 01.10.2013 and the aforementioned two dates. The management is directed to calculate interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the belated payment. It shall be paid to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly and the writ appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.D.S. J.,) 05.10.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias/skm To: The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.D.SUMATHI

, J.

ias/skm W.A.(MD)No.1068 of 2021

05.10.2026