(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and disburse interest @ 12% p.a. for the belated settlement of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner on account of his promotion as Director and Professor, Institute of Otolaryngology, Madras Medical College, Chennai 3, based on the orders of this Court in WP No. 29391 of 2010 dated 24.2.2020 within a reasonable time.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and disburse interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the belated settlement of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner on account of his promotion as Director and Professor, Institute of Otolaryngology, Madras Medical College, Chennai-3, based on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.29391 of 2010, dated 24.02.2020, within a reasonable time.

2. The petitioner was uncharitably denied promotion as Director and Professor, Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, during the year 2009. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29391 of 2010, wherein this Court, after a lapse of 10 years, passed an order dated 24.02.2020, granting the following relief:-

                     “8. Therefore, a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the notional promotion to the petitioner in the light of comparative merits with all attendant benefits and pass appropriate Orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Even though I find that the Affidavit sword by the Joint Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Department is misleading, I do not propose to impose any cost for the same.”

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the above order was implemented by the respondents on 09.10.2021 and the difference in revised salary was paid on 24.10.2021. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, having retired in the year 2010 and the revised salary having been settled only in the year 2021, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of his superannuation till the actual disbursement of the amount. Hence, the petitioner seeks interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his retirement till the actual disbursement of the amount.

                     3.1. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in the above Writ Petition was complied with only after the filing of the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.1194 of 2021, wherein this Court, by order dated 29.11.2021, had granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his claim for interest before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel justifies the filing of the present Writ Petition.

4. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and would contend that there was a dispute with regard to the promotion and that the said dispute was resolved only by virtue of the order passed by this Court. As soon as the said order was passed, after granting notional promotion and re-fixing the pay in the cadre of Director and Professor with effect from 07.12.2009, the respondents settled all the monetary benefits on 29.04.2021.

                     4.1. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that, in W.P.No.29391 of 2010, there was no direction to pay interest. Therefore, merely on the basis of the liberty granted in the contempt petition, the petitioner cannot claim interest for the alleged delayed payment. In fact, according to him, there was no delay at all. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. As already extracted hereinabove, this Court, in W.P.No.29391 of 2010, vide order dated 24.02.2020, directed the first respondent to consider the notional promotion of the petitioner and settle all the attendant benefits. Admittedly, the respondents settled the dues only on 29.04.2021.

7. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. The issue relating to the grant of interest is no longer res integra. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution of India, relying upon Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For ready reference, paragraph 14 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

                     “14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

8. In the case in hand, the petitioner’s promotional prospects were illegally denied, which was rightly agitated by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition as early as in the year 2010. Even after the filing of the Writ Petition, the respondents remained adamant and did not accept their fault and contested the matter for almost 10 years, and the petitioner ultimately obtained relief only after a period of 10 years.

9. Though, at the first blush, it appears that the respondents had settled the amount as soon as this Court passed the order, the conduct of the respondents in driving the petitioner to approach the Court to secure his legitimate right, and the conduct of the State in contesting the matter against an individual for 10 years and settling the amount only upon the intervention of this Court, have to be looked into carefully and seriously.

10. No doubt, if this Court directs payment of interest, the same would dent the public exchequer. But merely because the public exchequer is burdened on account of the payment of interest cannot be the sole basis to deny compensation for the suffering undergone by the petitioner for a decade. If this Court does not direct payment of any interest, it would only encourage the State to take its own time even performing its duties as required by law.

11. It is relevant to mention that, if the State commits any default in the performance of its duty, and driving the employees to approach the Court, there is no gainsaying the fact that the employee acquires a right to be compensated. In my opinion, the only way to compensate him is by directing payment of interest for the period of delay on the amount that was legally due to him.

12. In view of the above, detailed discussion, it would be appropriate to award interest upon the delayed payment at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement, till the date of actual reimbursement (29.04.2021). Further, the respondents are directed to pay the said interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, the respondents shall be liable to pay default interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order. This Court also makes it clear that, the respondents are at liberty to recover the default interest from those who are responsible for such delay.

13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.