JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay interest on the accumulated amount of arrears of salary and other allowances which had become due on October 21, 1974, but paid on August 10, 1988, under the following circumstances; 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on May 27, 1958 and thereafter he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. October 23, 1961. His services were terminated vide order dated October 23, 1967 w.e.f. July 1, 1966 by the joint Director, Ayurvedic Department. This termination was made under Rule-86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short 'RSR'). An appeal was preferred to the Government and the said order was set aside by the Government on October 10, 1974. While allowing the appeal, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated on the substantive post of U.D.C. w.e.f. the date of his termination.Thereafter, the petitioner resumed his duties on October 21, 1974.For the period, during which the petitioner's services remained terminated, respondent No.-2, the Director, Ayurvedic Department, Government of Rajasthan Ajmer, vide his order dated Feb.4, 1976 decided to make the payment of the salary and allowances after finalisation of the Departmental Enquiry, which was initiated against him vide charge-sheet under Rule-16 of the Rajasthan Civil Ser- vices (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958. This charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on Feb.4, 1976. The matter was also referred to the Law Department for opinion whether he should be given the benefit of Section 54(2) of R.S.R. On this the Law Department opined that the said benefit be given to the petitioner as he was innocent. However, the Medical and Public Health Department did not concur with the opinion of the Law Department and the matter was referred back to the Add_ 1. Director.The Addl. Director, Ayurvedic Department(who was also the Disciplinary Authority) conducted an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule-16 of the Raj. Civil Services(C.C.A.) Rules and exonerated him of all the charges vide order dated March 7, 1979. By the said order, it was also directed simultaneously that the petitioner be given the full pay and allowances w.e.f. 1.7.1966 to October 20, 1974. Director, Ayurvedic Department(who was also the Disciplinary Authority) conducted an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule-16 of the Raj. Civil Services(C.C.A.) Rules and exonerated him of all the charges vide order dated March 7, 1979. By the said order, it was also directed simultaneously that the petitioner be given the full pay and allowances w.e.f. 1.7.1966 to October 20, 1974. A copy of the said order has been placed on the record as Ex.1.In pursuance to the said order (Ex.-1), the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 570/- and a bill of the arrears of pay and other allowances was prepared and the same was sent to the Treasury Officer. Before the said payment could be made to the petitioner, the Addl. Director, Ayurvedic Department, again passed an order on June 16, 1979 by which the payment was stayed. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, claiming his seniority, and promotion to the post of Office Assistant. The Tribunal, in its judgment dated Sept.23, 1980, quashed the aforesaid order dated 16.6.1979 and directed the respondents to make the payment of the arrears of pay and other allowances within a month's time. In the said judgment, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for the respondents to issue the order dated June 16, 1979 staying the payment. The Tribunal further observed that the aforesaid payment will be made to the petitioner very soon. A copy of the aforesaid judgment has been placed on the record as Ex.-2. In the meantime, the Medical and Health Department of the State of Rajasthan conveyed the Government's sanction to permit the benefit of Rule 54(2) of R.S.R. to the petitioner. A copy of the said sanction is also placed on the record as Ex.-3.However, instead of making the payment to the petitioner, respondents filed a writ petition before the Court which was registered as S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.474/1981 being aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on March 19, 1981. While deciding the writ petition, this Court observed as under: "It appears that the Administrative Officer, in this case, has been guilty of serious lapses from time to time. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on March 19, 1981. While deciding the writ petition, this Court observed as under: "It appears that the Administrative Officer, in this case, has been guilty of serious lapses from time to time. The worst lapse is that even after realising thrice that the Civil Servant's salary cannot be withheld, ultimately, when the bill was going to be paid by the Treasury in the year 1979 for the period of 1967 to 1974, the officer by an executive administrative fiat deprived him again. Such an attitude of consistent deprivation of salary of a civil servant by series of illegal orders, cannot but be deprected. It is a case, where from the year 1967 to 1979 the officers have been adopting different methods for depriving an employee of his salary: His services have been terminated without assigning any reason or initiation of any proceedings. Realising that mistake an order was withdrawn only to be followed by disciplinary proceedings. It was adding insult to injury as it has been found ultimately that all the charges levelled against the civil servant had no substance. Yet another important feature which I have mentioned above, is that the Law Secretary opined that the civil servant is innocent and he must be given salary, but even after the opinion of the Law Secretary, the Deputy Secretary Medical & Health becomes "more pious than the popa" and vetoed the opinion of the Law Secretary and insisted on completion of the enquiry. Such is the tragic toll tale of the civil servant, against whom Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, wants invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, for depriving an employee of salary from the year 1967 to 1974 and that too under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed: The present one is a typical case, where the Administrative bosses by their own acts committed series of lapses, omissions and commissions, one after the other, insistently, persistently and ruthlessly, after there had been the legitimate order of payment of salary, emoluments of civil servant from the year 1967 to,1974, even though we are dealing with this matter in the year 1981. It is desired that in such cases, responsibility must be fixed on the officer concerned who is responsible for all this avoidable harassment, so that in future, the civil servants are not thrown from pole to pillar and pillar to pole, without getting even a single coin for a long period of seven years by defending such enquiry and litigations, which are too prolonged and which, in this particular case, has deprived him of his salary and emoluments for more than a decade. Is this the social justice which are expected to be imparted to the civil servant by the founding fathers? Is this relief which the Government is giving to small paid employees, almost lowest in the ladder by compelling him to face successive inquiry and protective litigation by becoming victim in successive unjust orders. To me, it appears that the controversy about the Rule 54 of the R.S.R. is wholly misconceived. Once, it is held that a civil servant is exonerated completely without even a caution or warning, without a word of stigma, no rules can deprive him of his earned salary. The case would be, of course, different in cases, on account of particular conduct, which is found to be such by the enquiry authority or the disciplinary authority, he is deprived of some part of salary or salary during the suspension period. In the instant case, suspension was not on account of any order of the Government, but it was on account of illegal conduct of the officers that he was not paid the amount. That decision having been made, not once, but a number of times, the employee respondent should have been paid amount of salary immediately." 3. In the instant case, suspension was not on account of any order of the Government, but it was on account of illegal conduct of the officers that he was not paid the amount. That decision having been made, not once, but a number of times, the employee respondent should have been paid amount of salary immediately." 3. The Finance Department of the State of Rajasthan vide its letter dated April 3, 1981 addressed to the Treasury Officer, Ajmer with a copy to the respondent No.2 asked that the order of the Tribunal be honoured and the payment be made to the petitioner.Inspite of the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 (Secretary in the Public Health Department) again issued an order dated April 7, 1981 whereby the order Ex.1 was set-aside and it was directed that the petitioner be treated as freshly appointed U.D.C. w.e.f. October 121, 1974, the date on which he had joined as U.D.C. after the termination order passed by respondent No.2 was set-aside by the Government.Therefore, the petitioner had again to knock the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition was registered as S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.689/1981. While admitting the writ petition, the operation of the aforesaid order was stayed by this Court on November 27,1981. 4. The respondents had also filed special appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 19, 1981, but the same was also dismissed on 11.8.1981 vide Ex.-8.The petitioner's case further is that the payment, as directed by the Tribunal vide Ex.-2, was detained for a period of more than 8 years on one or the other flimsy ground, but having failed at all levels, the payment of the arrears of pay and allowances for the period 1.7.66 to 20.10.74 was made to him on Aug.4, 1988 amounting to Rs. 33,500/-. According to him, this all happened inspite of the serious observations and remarks made against the respondents by this Court in the judgment dated March 19, 1981 Ex.-4. It has been further contended by the petitioner that after he joined his duties on October 21, 1974, on the basis of the Government order dated October 10, 1974 holding the termination order of the petitioner was bad, he became entitled to get the entire amount without any delay. It has been further contended by the petitioner that after he joined his duties on October 21, 1974, on the basis of the Government order dated October 10, 1974 holding the termination order of the petitioner was bad, he became entitled to get the entire amount without any delay. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sliding scale from 1.7.66 to 20.10.74 and thereafter, he be paid interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the accumulated amount of arrears of salary and other allowances which were illegally and persistently detained by the respondents. 5. The respondents, in their reply, have not disputed so far the relevant facts are concerned. It is not disputed by them that the termination order of the petitioner was set-aside by the State Government vide order dated October 10, 1974 and thereafter, he resumed his duties on 21.10.1974. According to the respondents, a departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner under Rule-76 of the Raj. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 and a charge-sheet was served on him on Feb.4, 1976, as such, it was decided that the payment of salary and allowances for the period from 1.7.66 to 20.10.74 be paid to the petitioner after the finalisation of departmental enquiry. The respondents have also not disputed the order of the Tribunal, as well as, the order passed by this Court as referred above. Then, it has been pleaded inter-alia that the relief of interest was not claimed by the petitioner in the Tribunal and no relief of interest was given to him by the Tribunal, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable. It was also not disputed by the respondents that the payment to the petitioner was made on Aug. 4,1988 which related to the arrears of his pay and allowances for the period 1.7.66 to October 20,1974.In nutshell, the plea of the respondents is that the Tribunal had not granted any relief with regard to the interest to the petitioner, the same cannot be granted by this Court in this writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Samdaria and the learned Dy.Government Advocate Mr. Pakar Farooq. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Samdaria and the learned Dy.Government Advocate Mr. Pakar Farooq. From the pleadings of the parties, the following facts remain no more in dispute: (i) The services of the petitioner was terminated from 1.7.1966, but the termination order was set-aside by the Government on October 10, 1974; (ii) That the petitioner resumed his duties, after the order of the Government on Oct.21,1974; (iii) That the respondent No.-2 vide order dated 4.2.1976 decided to make the payment of the salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 1.7.66 to 20.10.74 after the finalisation of the departmental enquiry and the said departmental enquiry ended in favour of the petitioner on 7.3.1979 and it was directed while exonerating the petitioner that he be paid full pay and allowances for the period from 1.7.66 to 20.10.74; (iv) The Tribunal in its order dated 23.9.80 directed the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of one month; (v) That the writ petition filed by the respondents was also dismissed by this court on 19.3.1981 with harsh observations against the respondents as detailed-out above; (vi) That the payment has been made to the petitioner after 8 years from the order of the Tribunal. 7. On these admitted facts, the question arises whether the petitioner should be deprived to get the interest on the amount which was detained by the respondents without any reason or right.Mr. Samdaria has strenuously argued that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and inspite of the orders passed by the competent authority while exonerating the petitioner from all the charges, the order of the Service Tribunal dated 23.9.1980 and the order of this Court dated 19.3.1981, the aforesaid money has been illegally detained and the petitioner has been deprived to get the benefit of the said amount.Mr. Samdaria, in this connection, has relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements in which the interest has been awarded.In Amalendu Gupta V/s L.I.C. 1982 II L.L.J. 332 the dispute was with regard to the payment of the strike period. Samdaria, in this connection, has relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements in which the interest has been awarded.In Amalendu Gupta V/s L.I.C. 1982 II L.L.J. 332 the dispute was with regard to the payment of the strike period. While allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the respondent to pay the concerned workmen the wages for the strike period together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.In State of Kerala V/s M.Padmanabham Nair AIR 1985 S.C. 356 there was a delay in payment of pension and gratuity amount. A suit for interest was filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over emphasised and it would not be reasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement." In that case, the Court found that there was glaring instance of culpable delay in the settlement of pension and gratuity claims due to the respondent who had retired on,May 19,1973 and the pension and gratuity were ultimately paid to him on 14.8.1975 i.e. after more than two years and three months of his retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the grant of interest by the trial court was fully justified. The trial court had awarded interest @ 6% though the said request was for 12% and in this connection, the Supreme Court was of the view that the interest @ 12% should have been allowed, but the relief should not be granted to the claimant as he did not prefer any cross objection in the High Court for enhancement of the same from 6% to 12%.In Asha Goel V/s L.I.C. of India (3) AIR 1986 Bombay 412 , there was a delay in making payment under life insurance policy on the death of the insured. While directing the Life Insurance Corp. to pay the wife of the deceased husband Rs. While directing the Life Insurance Corp. to pay the wife of the deceased husband Rs. 1 lac arising out of the Life Insurance Policy of her husband together with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband.In Olga Tellis V/s Bombay Municipal Corporation (4) AIR 1986 SC 180 , the apex court of the country held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.In N.Mahapatro V/s U.O.I 1988 (4) S.L.R. 673 , the Central Administrative Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 12% on the arrears of salary not paid relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. From the facts indicated above, the case of the petitioner for payment of the interest may be judged for the period prior to Sept.23,1980 when the Service Appellate Tribunal passed the order directing the respondents to pay the entire amount of pay and allowances from 1.7.66 to 20.10.74 within a period of one period (six month), and the period thereafter.So far the period prior to Sept.23,1980 is concerned, I do not think that.the petitioner should be paid interest as no such order was passed by the Tribunal while granting the relief in favour of the petitioner for the payment of the arrears of pay and allowances within a period of one month. The said order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the petitioner,. and the petitioner could have claimed interest on the arrears of pay and other allowances for the aforesaid period after his termination order was set-aside by the Government.However, after 23.9.1980 to 4.8.1988 there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be paid the interest on the accumulated amount of Rs. 33,500/-, which had become due to be paid long ago, but the same was detained by the respondents illegally. There is no explanation of the respondents for non-payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner for which he had become.entitled to get long ago. Inspite of the order of the Tribunal and the serious observations and remarks made by this Court, the respondents deliberately detained the amount of arrears of the pay and other allowances. There is no explanation of the respondents for non-payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner for which he had become.entitled to get long ago. Inspite of the order of the Tribunal and the serious observations and remarks made by this Court, the respondents deliberately detained the amount of arrears of the pay and other allowances. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala V/s M.Padmanabhan Nair (supra), the pension and gratuity are not bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but it is a valuable right and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. 9. Applying the said principle, I have no hesitation to award interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner on the accumulated amount of Rs. 33,500/- from 23.9.1980 (when the order of Service Tribunal was passed directing the respondents to make the payment within a month's time) till 4.8.1988 when the payment was actually made to the petitioner.Consequently, this writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of interest within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get the cost of this writ petition quantified as Rs. 1500/-.Petition allowed. *******