HC lambasts officials for not settling arrears to pensioner

Lambasting officials of the Public Health and Preventive Medicine for not settling arrears to a retired employee for a long time, Madras High Court today directed that statutory interest be paid for the amount and also sought to know how these persons would feel if they are in that position after retirement when they need pension.
"It is unfortunate that the working officers forget that they will retire one day and will be in need of pension and if they are in this position how will they feel?," the first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam, said.

The bench said it expects the office of Accountant General to process the petitioner's case within a month of receipt of relevant papers from her.
"The statutory interest will be payable for arrears of pension," the bench stated this when a contempt petition filed by one K Sarojamma of Kumarakuppam in Tiruvallur district came up for hearing.
It said the fate of the contemnors would be examined on the next date of hearing, pursuant to the order passed today and directed the case to be listed on July 16, by which date all arrears due should be cleared, details of calculation placed before the court and dispatched to her.

The petitioner contended she had joined as health visitor on March 18, 1971. On May 9, 1981, she was awarded Selection Grade and promoted to community health nurse on February 6, 1989. Her pay scale for the post was fixed by Deputy Director of Health Services on September 1, 1999.

However, her pay was revised and re-fixed with effect from February 6, 1999 from the date of her promotion as Community Health Nurse and also ordered recovery of excess amount paid to her.
The State Appellate Tribunal granted a stay but she was again issued another recovery order on November 25, 2004 against which she filed a petition in High Court. A single Judge dismissed it, as also other petitions of a similar nature.

She then filed an appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench which directed grant of all benefits. Based on this, she again made representations on October 30, 2011 and January 3, 2012, but there was no response and so she filed a contempt petition. Meantime, she retired on June 30 2006.
The bench today questioned seven officials present how the calculation was made, but they could not do so, resulting in the court issuing general directions that only officer concerned should remain present in court.
The bench then posted the matter to July 16.