WP/12141/2009 of K.NAGARAJAN Vs THE INSPECTOR on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings dated 25.08.1994 and consequently, to direct the respondent to pay the sanctioned gratuity amount with interest. The petitioner further seeks a direction to re-fix his pensionary benefits based on his last drawn scale of pay and to disburse the difference in pension from the year 1992 to date based on the basic pay scale of Rs.2,120/-.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is a senior citizen who retired from service on 30.11.1992 as a Special Grade Sanitary Inspector in the Salem Municipality after rendering 34 years of service. Following his retirement, he was drawing a pension under P.P.O.No.2058. Asserting his entitlement to all statutory retirement benefits, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent as the terminal benefits were withheld without any reason. Subsequently, by way of the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.1994, passed after a delay of nearly two years, the respondent sanctioned a gratuity amount of Rs.38,412/-. However, despite the sanction, the said amount was not disbursed to the petitioner. Instead, based on an audit objection alleging excess payment, the Salem Municipality sought to recover sums of Rs.5,031.21 and Rs.2,500/-.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP.No.12141 of 2009

The respondent had further intimated the petitioner that an amount of approximately Rs.5,000/- had been paid in excess between the years 1987 and 1992, which was subsequently recovered. Furthermore, the petitioner’s basic pay scale of Rs.2,120/- was reduced to Rs.2,060/-. Thereafter, by way of subsequent proceedings dated 28.04.2009, the respondent sanctioned a reduced sum of Rs.27,835/- towards gratuity. Aggrieved by the recovery, the downward revision of pay, and the withholding of gratuity, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

4. The respondent is not entitled to effect any recovery from the pensionary benefits of a retired employee post-retirement, particularly when there is no misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the writ petitioner. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner under the guise of excess payment or audit objections, such recovery is legally unsustainable and the recovered amount must be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP.No.12141 of 2009

5. As regards the disbursement of gratuity, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the respondent in settling the statutory terminal benefits. The petitioner is legally entitled to receive interest at the prevailing statutory rate for the belated payment of the gratuity amount.

6. This Court, however, is not inclined to go into the aspect of re-fixation of the petitioner's scale of pay at this point of time.

7. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed. The respondent is directed to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner towards alleged excess payments or audit objections within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is directed to calculate and disburse the legally entitled interest on the delayed payment of gratuity from the date it became due until the date of actual payment, within the matrix of the aforementioned timeline. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP.No.12141 of 2009

To The Inspector, Local Fund Audit, No.64, Thayar Street, Chennai-600 002.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP.No.12141 of 2009

KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. Sni WP.No.12141 of 2009 27-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )