High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of with directions to disburse and fix...

Meenakshi.K v Cherthala Municipality

Case / Petition Number:WA No.1115 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • J. Chelameswar
  • P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date
2010-08-20
Court Decision / Holding
Disposed of with directions: (i) The Rs.1,00,000 paid on 28.07.2010 shall be adjusted towards the arrears of DA; (ii) The balance Rs.25,000 paid on 28.07.2010 shall be treated as part payment of DCRG; the remaining DCRG shall be disbursed within three months from today, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from 01.02.2009; the Rs.25,000 credit shall be accounted for while calculating interest; (iii) The respondents shall consider and pay the commuted value of pension within three months from today.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions to disburse and fix timelines for payment of DCRG, DA arrears, and commuted value of pension; interim adjustments and interest ordered.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Meenakshi.K

Respondents

  • Cherthala Municipality, represented by its Secretary
  • Director of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Office of the Local Fund Audit, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. SMT. P.V. ASHA

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sr. Govt. Pleader Srir Benny Gervasis for R2 & R3
  • • Sri J. Om Prakash for R1

Case Synopsis & Summary

Meenakshi.K, a retired sanitation worker of Cherthala Municipality, filed W.P.(C) No.36211 of 2009 challenging the delay in disbursement of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and dearness allowance (DA) arrears from 2002 onward. The writ petition sought timely payment and interest for the delayed terminal benefits. The learned Single Judge directed the municipality to pay the terminal benefits within six months, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of judgment. In the WA hearing, the court, on 16.07.2010, issued an interim order directing part payment of Rs.1,00,000 towards terminal benefits by 31.07.2010, which the record shows was paid on 28.07.2010. By 28.07.2010, Rs.2,96,366 was claimed as payable, including Rs.75,000 in DA arrears; the respondents cited paucity of funds for delay in payment of DCRG and DA. The judgment cites Padmanabhan Nair v. State of Kerala (AIR 1985 SC 356) and Dua v. State of Hariyana (2008 (3) KLT 58) to justify timely disbursal and interest on delay. The Division Bench holds that the appellant is entitled to 6% simple interest on DCRG from 01.02.2009 and that the commuted value of pension should be decided promptly. The appeal is disposed with directions: adjust Rs.1,00,000 against DA arrears; treat Rs.25,000 as part payment of DCRG and pay the balance within three months with interest; decide the commuted value within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Pension Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Retirement benefits should be paid within two months from the date of retirement; if delayed, interest should be paid on expiry of two months (Padmanabhan Nair v. State of Kerala).
  • Where payment of terminal benefits is delayed, the employee is entitled to compensation by award of interest (Dua v. State of Hariyana).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the delay in payment of DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance since 2002 is unjustified. She seeks interest on the delayed payments from the date of retirement and urgent settlement of the commuted value of pension. She emphasizes that retirement benefits must be disbursed promptly to safeguard the welfare of a low‑paid employee and that the interim order and subsequent directions should be implemented to prevent further distress.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the delay was due to paucity of funds and financial constraints within the Municipality. They argue for the need to balance public finances with the employee's entitlement, asserting that immediate disbursement was not feasible. They request adherence to interim orders and a phased payment schedule consistent with available resources.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Padmanabhan Nair v. State of KeralaAIR 1985 SC 356PositiveUsed to support the proposition that retirement benefits should be paid promptly and that delay attracts interest.
Dua v. State of Hariyana2008 (3) KLT 58PositiveCited to justify compensation in the form of interest for delayed terminal benefits.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Meenakshi.K v Cherthala Municipality and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1115 of 2010() --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36211/2009 Dated 16/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- MEENAKSHI.K, (RETD. SANITATION WORKER, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY), VARIATH CHIRA, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT KANNATTUPARAMBIL, KRISHNA KRIPA, CMC 15, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERTHALA. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI BENNY GERVASIS FOR R2 & R3 SRI. J. OM PRAKASH FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.A. No. 1115 OF 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of August, 2010** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Ravindran, J**_ **.** The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36211 of 2009. She retired from service on 30.11.2008 while working as Sanitation Worker in the Cherthala Municipality. The writ petition was filed aggrieved by the delay in the disbursement of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as 'the DCRG' for short) and also arrears of dearness allowance from the year 2002 onwards. By the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge directed payment of terminal benefits within six months with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment. This writ appeal is filed claiming interest on the unpaid terminal benefits from the date of retirement. 2. The fact that the appellant retired from service on 30.11.2008 while working as Sanitation Worker in the Cherthala Municipality is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that though she is being paid monthly pension, DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance from the year 2002 have not been disbursed to her. In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed the said benefit. She also WA No.1115/2010 2 prayed for payment of commuted value of pension. The respondents justified the delay in disbursement of DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance citing financial constraints as the reason. Taking note of the said submission, the learned single Judge, directed disbursement of the terminal benefits within six months, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment. 3. When the writ appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 16.7.2010, after hearing both sides, we passed an interim order directing payment of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards part payment of the terminal benefits due to her, on or before 31.7.2010. It is conceded before us that the said amount was disbursed to the appellant on 28.7.2010. When the writ appeal came up for further hearing on 3.8.2010, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cherthala Municipality submitted that the amount payable to the appellant by way of arrears of dearness allowance was Rs.75,000/- and that including the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,96,366/- was payable to the appellant as on 28.7.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance were not disbursed on account of WA No.1115/2010 3 paucity of funds. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that though the appellant has applied for payment of commuted value of pension, till date a decision on the application has not been taken. 4. The Apex Court has in **Padmanabhan Nair v. State of Kerala** (AIR 1985 SC 356) held that the retirement benefits should be paid to employees at least within two months from the date of retirement and that if there is delay, interest at the market rate should be paid on the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. In **Dua v. State of Hariyana** (2008 (3) KLT 58), the Apex Court has held that where payment of terminal benefits is delayed, the employee is entitled to be compensated by award of interest. The fact that DCRG has not so far been paid to the appellant is not in dispute. The appellant retired from service on 31.8.2008, nearly two years back. The appellant was a Sanitation Worker, a low paid employee of the Municipality. It is also not in dispute that she was denied payment of the sum of Rs.75,000/- representing arrears of dearness allowance due to her from the year 2002 onwards. For no fault of hers and for no justifiable reason, payment of DCRG was WA No.1115/2010 4 denied to her. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be compensated by award of interest on the amount of DCRG at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.2.2009. Under the pension rules, the appellant is also entitled to commuted value of pension. In such circumstances, we are also of the opinion that the respondents should take an expeditious decision on the appellant's application for payment of commuted value of pension. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the following directions: (i) The sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the first respondent to the appellant on 28.7.2010 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16.7.2010, shall be adjusted towards the arrears of dearness allowance payable to her. (ii) The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- paid on 28.7.2010 shall be treated as having been disbursed towards part payment of the DCRG. The balance amount of DCRG due to the appellant shall be disbursed within three months from today, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from 1.2.2009 till the date of payment. The payment of Rs.25,000/- effected on 28.7.2010 shall also be given credit to, while computing the interest payable on the amount of WA No.1115/2010 5 DCRG. (iii) The respondents shall also consider the application submitted by the appellant for payment of commuted value of pension and take steps to pay the commuted value of pension to the appellant within three months from today. **J.CHELAMESWAR, (CHIEF JUSTICE)** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WA No.1115/2010 6 WA No.1115/2010 7