MAHINDER NARAIN. J. (Oral) ( 1 ) RULE D. B. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner Lt. Col. R. K. Aggarwal was permanently seconded to the Surveyor General of India, which is part of the Department of Science and Technology. This was in Oct. 1956. ( 2 ) THE petitioner sought voluntary retirement in Feb. , 1983. The Govt. of India accepted it on 31. 8. 93 in the afternoon after obtaining sanction from the Ministry concerned. A communication to that effect was made to the petitioner on 16. 9. 83. ( 3 ) THE question which trises for determination in this case is whether owing to the delay in payment of retiral benefits, the petitioner is entitled to any interest or not. It is not disputed that retiral benefits were paid some time in 1995. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner refers to 1985 (1) SCC 429 . At page 430, Supreme Court observed: "usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L. P. C. (last pay certificate) and N. L. C. (no liability certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Govt. Deptts. Since the date of retirement of every Govt. servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Govt. servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Govt. servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be unreasonable 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. " ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in the above case awarded interest at the rate of 12% p. a. ( 6 ) AN affidavit of justification of delay has been filed by the respondents. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Deptt. and the Ministry concerned having having accepted the resignation with effect from 31. 8. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Deptt. and the Ministry concerned having having accepted the resignation with effect from 31. 8. 83, there is no reason why the formal approval of the Deptt. of Defence should have been delayed by over ten years. In any case, the receipt of that approval would not determine the period for which the interest should be paid in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra ). ( 7 ) ONE of the justifications which is given in the affidavit is that departmental action was contemplated against the petitioner which eventually was not taken against him, therefore, cannot be a reason for delaying the grant of sanction, if sanction was needed at all, by ten years. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, following judgment of Supreme Court, we also direct payment of interest at the rate of 12% P. A. on the retiral benefits receivable by the petitioner, which were received by him some time in 1995. The interest be paid from 31. 10. 83 till the date of payment of the retrial benefits.