@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashThe Petitioner''s father while in service as B.T. Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Odugathur Vilalge, Vellore District, died on 17.10.1977. His wife having predeceased him, the Petitioner being the daughter of the deceased person was 6 years old and she was the only legal-heir of her father and she was under the care of guardian K. Rajarathinam, elder brother of her father. It is seen that the said guardian has made are presentation even on 10.05.1979 for payment of GPF and DCRG apart from family pension. However, the amounts have not been paid. Ultimately, after 20 years, she has filed O.A. No. 5335 of 1997 in the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal and there was a direction issued by the Tribunalon 17.07.1997 for payment of family pension etc., Itappears that a contempt application has been filed andthereafter, the amount of arrears of DCRG amounting to Rs. 92,911/-was paid on 16.12.1999. She has made are presentation for payment of interest for the belated payment and that came to be rejected under the impugned order by the Director of School Education namely, the second Respondent on the ground that the proposal for pension was not received in time and it was due to the delay, the records were not traceable. Challenging the said order of the second Respondent, the present writ petition has been filed basing reliance on the various judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court and also Pension Rule stating that for the belated payment of DCRG and pension, the family members are entitled for interest.
2. As per the Pension Rules, if the delay is more than one year, the percentage of interest to which the family members entitled is 10%. However, in
3. It is admitted that at the time when the Petitioner has approached the Tribunal for the purpose of grant of the family pension, she has already become major and married and an order came to be passed by the Tribunal on 17.07.1997 directing the Respondents therein to consider the application made by the Petitioner, dated 05.08.1996regarding the settlement of terminal benefits. The portion of the order of the Tribunal is as follows:
Admit. Heard.
The second Respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicant dated 05.08.96 regarding the settlement of his terminal benefits and pass orders as per rules within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. Therefore, as per the order of the Tribunal, its clear that the Petitioner has made an application on05.08.1996 and thereafter, the pensionary benefits were settled on 16.12.1999. The grant of interest payable for the belated payment of DCRG and pension is a matter of solatium for the family members who are deprived of the bread-winner. By a lapse of time, especially after a long lapse of 20 years, one cannot conclude that the dependency of such deceased person who died 20 years ago continues. The payment of interest on the belated payment being asolatium and discretionary in nature cannot be indiscriminately given to everyone. If the claim is made by the actual dependant like wife who has lost her husband, it is different for the purpose of exercising the discretionary power. But on the facts of the present case, not only for the Petitioner being the daughter having got married and made an application, as it is seen in the order of the Tribunal only 05.08.1996 and thereafter the family pension has been settled. I do not see any reason to exercise the discretion of compassion for payment of interest. It is true that the pension is not a bounty and it is a legal obligation and the non payment of such pension is affecting the legal right which has vested on the family members. But as far as the payment of interest is concerned which depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. On the facts of this case which I have narrated above, I do not see any reason to award interest to the Petitioner for the belated payment.
5. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the second Respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No. costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
