ORDER : R.A. Mehta, J. The petitioner is a retired teacher. He retired in May, 1982. The question is about the pensionable service. It is alleged that there was a break of 20 days from 25-10-1959 to 15-11-1959 and of six days from 8-6-1964 to 14-6-1964. Both these breaks have been condoned. By an order of 12th Sept. 1986, the respondents were directed to decide the question with regard to condonation of break in service of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionable benefits, latest by 20-10-1986. It appears that in pursuance of this order, the break has been condoned and the petitioner's total pensionable service is 30 years. However, the petitioner has been paid pension on the basis of 27 years of service with Gujarat Suite. For 3 years of service from 12-6-1961 to 7-6-1964, it is stated that the liability for payment of amount of pension for these three years of services would be that of State of Maharashtra The petitioner has also claimed that the delayed payment of pension for 27 years of service is also required to be appropriately compensated by awarding interest. The petitioner has also produced the calculation of interest and he has submitted that the amount due on 2-5-1982 was Rs. 26,540.54 on the basis of 27 years of service. However, the said payment was made on 5-1-1987. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed that for this delay of 4 years 248 days in payment, he should have been paid interest at the rate of 12% p.a. which comes to Rs. 14,902/- This amount of interest should have been paid when the principal amount was paid on 5-1-1987. However, only the principal amount was paid and she interest of Rupees 14,902/- was not paid and on that amount of Rupees 14,902/- which has not been paid since 6-1-1987, the petitioner has calculated interest of 11 years at the rate of 12% p.a. and it comes to Rs. 20,108/-. Thus, the petitioner claims that he should be paid interest of Rs. 35,010/-. It is further submitted that this interest is calculated only at the rate of 12% p. a. simple interest and he has claimed that interest should be calculated at compound rate of 18% p.a. 2. As far as the principal amount and the delay in payment of the principal amount of pension is concerned, there is no dispute. 35,010/-. It is further submitted that this interest is calculated only at the rate of 12% p. a. simple interest and he has claimed that interest should be calculated at compound rate of 18% p.a. 2. As far as the principal amount and the delay in payment of the principal amount of pension is concerned, there is no dispute. Therefore, the aforesaid claim of Rs. 35,010/- is justified. Even though the petitioner has claimed compound interest at the rate of 18% p.a., it is not proper, but simple interest at the rate of 12% p. a. is a reasonable rate of interest and that has to be paid. The respondents are, therefore, required to be directed to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 35,010/- within three months from today. 3. As regards three years of service which are not taken into consideration for the purpose of counting pension is also directed to be counted towards pension. It is not in dispute that this is a part of pensionable service. The only dispute is that since that service is rendered in Maharashtra, the petitioner will be entitled to get pension for that period from the State of Maharashtra. However, it is to be noted that service prior to 1961 and the service after 1964 are in the State of Gujarat and the entire service is treated as a continuous service and pensionable service. It is the State in which its employee retires gives the pensionary benefits and that State must make payment of pension for entire service and thereafter it may make its claim for reimbursement from another State for part of liability of that State. It is an accounting matter between the two States and the pensioner cannot be made to go from pillar to post. The State is bound to pay pension for the entire service and if there is any accounting procedure to be followed between the States, it would be an internal matter for the states and not for the pensioner. 4. Therefore, the State Government is directed to recalculate the pension of the petitioner on the basis of total pensionable service of 30 years inclusive of three years from 1961 to 1964 and to make payment of that amount to the petitioner with 12% interest from 2-5-1982, the dale of retirement till the dale of payment. 4. Therefore, the State Government is directed to recalculate the pension of the petitioner on the basis of total pensionable service of 30 years inclusive of three years from 1961 to 1964 and to make payment of that amount to the petitioner with 12% interest from 2-5-1982, the dale of retirement till the dale of payment. This calculation shall be made within two months from today and communicated to the petitioner. The payment shall be made to the petitioner within three months from today. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute by directing that: (1) The respondents shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 35,010/- within six weeks from today; (2) The respondents shall include petitioner's three years of service from 1961 to 1964 and recalculate the pension on the basis of total service of 30 years and work out the difference and interest at 12% p.a. and communicate it to the petitioner, within two months from today; (3) Such amount of difference with interest at the rate of 12% from 2-5-1982 till the date of payment shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents within three months from today; (4) It would be open to the respondents to claim reimbursement from the State of Maharashtra. However, that would be no ground for delaying payment of pension to the petitioner; (5) The respondents authorities shall pay costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 1000/-. (6) The pensioner is already of the age of 75 years and it is unfortunate that such delay in the case of pensioner has taken place. Now, it shall be seen that the reliefs granted in this petition are expeditiously complied with. Petition allowed.