Judgment :- Bhat. Ag.cj. When the writ appeal came up for admission as per our direction a copy of the appeal was served on the Government Pleader. We have heard both sides. 2. Appellant herein retired from the Municipal Common Service on the afternoon of 30-6-1984 while working as Superintendent. Death-cum-retirement gratuity, amount of commuted pension and pension had not been sanctioned or paid to him for over two years. Therefore on 24-11-1986 he filed writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the State and officers to sanction and pay death¬cum-retirement gratuity, pension and Rs. 44.127/- due on account of commutation of pension, the last having been incorporated by way of amendment. He also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-9-1984 till date of payment. By virtue of interim direction of the court, amount due as death-cum-retirement gratuity and arrears of pension were paid. Amount due on account of commutation of pension was paid on 13-3-1987. In view of these facts learned single judge felt that no other directions were called for and accordingly disposed of the writ petition. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the learned single judge to direct payment of interest has filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the decision in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (1984 K.L.T. 542) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (1985 KLT 86 = AIR 1985 SC 356). That was a case where pension and gratuity amounts were paid more than two years and three months after retirement and the pensioner filed a suit for recovery of interest by way of damages for the belated payment. The court granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum though interest at the rate of 12% had been claimed. The High Court and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decree on the facts of that case. Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the decision in Kesavan v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 135). That was a case where retirement benefits were kept pending on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the retired government servant. The court struck clown the disciplinary proceedings as illegal, directed the entire retirement benefits to be disbursed and awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. That was a case where retirement benefits were kept pending on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the retired government servant. The court struck clown the disciplinary proceedings as illegal, directed the entire retirement benefits to be disbursed and awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Our attention is also invited to the decision in Sadasivan v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 221) where the learned single judge directed payment of interest at 12% per annum on account of delay in payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity taking the view that the delay arose on account of inaction on the part of the Government. 5. The case which went upto the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable on facts. That was a case of a suit being filed for recovery of damages. The other two cases relied on, of course, arose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not understand these two cases as laying down a general proposition that whenever there is some delay in payment of retirement bencfiis there must necessarily be a direction to pay interest or that interest must be directed to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum. Whether on the facts of a given case it can be said that there has been negligence on the part of the authority or officers and if so, whether the State must be mulcted with liability to pay interest is to be decided on the facts of each case. Further the period for which interest is to be directed to be p id also depends on the facts of each case and must be decided on that basis. 6. We have examined the averments in the writ petition and in the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit does not provide any justification for the delay in sanctioning payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity, pension or commuted pension. We also take note of the fact that immediately alter the filing of the writ petition, death-cum-retirement gratuity amount was paid and some time thereafter amount due towards commuted pension was paid. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, in our opinion, learned single judge should have directed payment of interest at 12% per annum for a consolidated period of two years. 7. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, in our opinion, learned single judge should have directed payment of interest at 12% per annum for a consolidated period of two years. 7. The impugned judgment is set aside and we direct the respondents to pay appellant interest at the rate of 12% per annum for a consolidated period of two years on the amount paid to the appellant towards death-cum-retirement gratuity and commuted pension. The writ appeal is allowed to this extent, but without costs.