R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) PETITION has arise in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Dr. Shantilal A Shah was in the first instance compulsorily retired on 6. 1 The said order was challenged before this Court and the order of compulsory retirement was quashed on 17. 2. 1981. However by that time the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. After quashing of the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner 21st paid difference of salary and the pension given to the petitioner during the period of compulsory retirement order remained in force upto the date of his superannuation on 21st May 1982 However even after computation of arrears of salary until the date of superannuation and payment of it after a delay of 15 months from the date of the judgment the respondents did not determine the revised pension to which the petitioner was entitled as a result of quashing of the order of compulsory retirement on 17. 2. 1981. Faced with this situation the petitioner filed this petition on 30. 5. 83 for claiming retiral benefits which became due to the petitioner as a result of setting aside his order of compulsory retirement. On 18. 2. 83 notice pending admission was issued on 24. 3 Rule was also issued. However no return has been filed and none has appeared today at the time of hearing. After notice pending admission was issued and the determination of the revised pension was still not made which necessarily resulted in issuance of Rule it was only on 30. 8 as is now informed by the learned counsel for that petitioner that the respondents revised benefits and released the same thereafter. ( 3 ) IN the circumstances the petitioner contends that though retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner which became due to him as a consequence of the order of this Court dated 17. 2. 81 setting aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner nonetheless he is entitled to interest on such delayed payment inasmuch as State has not acted reasonably in the matter of fixing revised pension and releasing other retiral benefits to the petitioner within a reasonable time from the date when the same became due i. e. 17. 2. 81 and therefore the petitioner must be compensated for such inordinately delayed payment of his retiral benefits. 2. 81 and therefore the petitioner must be compensated for such inordinately delayed payment of his retiral benefits. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner relies on the following observations in the case of Manukhlal Unadkat vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1990 (2) GLH 35 . "there is no dispute that the petitioner retired in July 1983 and the pension had become due to him and that he did not receive that pension till February 1988 During this period the amount that was payable to the petitioner has remained with the State and therefore the respondent State cannot escape from the utility to make payment of interest on the said amount. Since the petitioner retired from July 1983 a reasonable period of six months can be excluded but from January 19 1984 till December 31 1987 the petitioner must be paid interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts of pension paid late. The petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of this amount and the respondent-Slate has retained this amount and therefore it would be just and equitable to direct the respondent-State to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the commuted pending and gratuity and on monthly amounts of pension from January 1 1984" ( 5 ) IN my opinion the aforesaid principle fully applies to the present case. As the respondents have retained the amount which the respondent State was bound to pay within reasonable time which in the aforesaid case held to be six months or latest alongwith determination of arrears of salary made by the respondents themselves the petitioner is entitled to claim interest. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the commuted pension and gratuity with effect from 1st May 1982 to the date of actual payment. The respondents are further directed to make payment of interest within four months from today. Respondents shall pay the costs to the petitioner which is quantified at Rs. 1000/ -. Petition Allowed. .