A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Cost analyst in the respondent-Port Trust in the year 1974. He was promoted as Accounts officer in 1980, Deputy Chief Accounts officer in 1982 and as Deputy Financial advisor and Chief Accounts Officer in the year 1988. While, the petitioner was working as Deputy Financial Advisor and chief Accounts Officer, he was served with a memo dated 25-1-1997 calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him stating that he acted in connivance with the contractor in order to unduly award the subject work in his favour taking advantage of the chairman s Instructions in a twisted manner even by compromising the interests of the Port Trust. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1-2-1987 denying the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, charge memo was issued on 27-9-1997 under Regulation 12 of the Visakhapatnam port Employees (Classification, Control and appeal) Regulations, 1968 (for short "the regulations") which deals with imposition of minor penalties. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-memo on 8-10-1997. As the respondent-Port Trust has not taken any decision, the petitioner was permitted to retire on 30-11-1997 as Deputy financial Advisor and Chief Accounts officer. Pending finalisation of minor penalties on retirement, the petitioner s pension was not settled due to the reason that the charge for minor penalty is pending on the date of retirement. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 9-12-1997 requesting to fix the pension and release the same but the same was not fixed and released. The petitioner made a representation oh 10-12-1997 with a request to give benefit of the resolution passed by the Board of the port Trust dated 23-3-1997 wherein the board adopted Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 (for short "the Pension Rules) which provides that those who are having special qualifications are entitled to the benefit of added years of service for calculation of pension. But by letter dated 6-5-98 provisional pension was sanctioned without giving the benefit of Rule 30 of pension Rules. Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ended on 31-3-1998 by imposing the penalty of Censure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority against the punishment of censure imposed oh him. But by letter dated 6-5-98 provisional pension was sanctioned without giving the benefit of Rule 30 of pension Rules. Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ended on 31-3-1998 by imposing the penalty of Censure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority against the punishment of censure imposed oh him. Even after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the pension of the petitioner was not fixed but the authorities by their letter dated 28-9-1998 again sanctioned only the provisional pension. The petitioner refused to receive the same and filed the present writ petition alleging mala fides against the third respondent. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining as Cost analyst, he passed Intermediate examination of ICWAI of Calcutta and in the qualification prescribed for the same, it is also mentioned that a candidate should be a graduate and have passed Intermediate examination of the Institute of Cost and works Accounts of India or UK and should have one year experience in cosfmg after passing Intermediate examination. In view of the same, the petitioner who acquired the said qualification as per Rule 30 of Pension rules is entitled to the weightage of added service in view of acquiring special qualification. And after adding the same, pension shall be fixed accordingly. Mere pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for minor penalities is not a bar for releasing of the pension after adding service but the third respondent to harass the petitioner has sanctioned only provisional pension. Therefore, he is entitled to the pension with interest with effect from the date of retirement till the date of payment of such pension and damages for the delayed payment. ( 2 ) THE respondent-Port Trust filed a counter stating that the petitioner was allowed to retire on 30-11-97 subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. As the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner even though they are minor penalty proceedings as on the date of retirement, he is not entitled to the pension as a matter of right as per rule 9 of the Pension Rules, and as per the government of India decision No. 6, under rule 9 grant of 100% provisional pension under Rule 69 is mandatory even if departmental proceedings are continued. It is also submitted that the same rule (Rule 69) specifies that the Government servant who has retired and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or are continued shall be paid provisional pension. Any departmental proceedings covers both major and minor penalty proceedings. The petitioner was given a reply on 9-1-1998 regarding the benefit of added years of service is under examination but as petitioner is not having fullfledged qualification at the time of recruitment but only joined the service with intermediate qualification, he is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 30 of the Pension rules. As disciplinary proceedings are pending a provisional pension was sanctioned but the petitioner himself refused to receive the pension. Hence, he is not entitled to any interest or damages as claimed by him and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner sri M. Kesava Rao contended that as per rule 9 of the Pension Rules, pension can be withheld only where it is ordered either in the departmental or judicial proceedings, when the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service and sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 says that the minor penalty proceedings will not have any effect on pension. Admittedly, in the present case", charge-memo was issued only with regard to minor penalty proceedings. Even after the said proceedings are concluded with the imposition of censure, the same will not have any effect on release of pension. He further contends that after filing the writ petition, the appellate authority by proceedings dated 31-1-2001 allowed the appeal and the petitioner is exonerated from the penalty of censure imposed on him by the respondent-Port Trust with a direction to settle the terminal benefits. In view of the same, sanctioning of provisional pension by the authority is not only arbitrary but also mala fide. The third respondent has sanctioned only provisional pension though-the petitioner is entitled to full pension. In spite of the mala fides attributed against the third respondent, he has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit denying the allegations levelled against him. Hence, the same is unrebutted. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to full pension from the date of his retirement with interest and also damages for the delayed payment. In spite of the mala fides attributed against the third respondent, he has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit denying the allegations levelled against him. Hence, the same is unrebutted. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to full pension from the date of his retirement with interest and also damages for the delayed payment. He further contends that once, the petitioner acquires the special qualification, weightage of service should be given to him. Therefore, he requests the Court to direct the respondent-Port Trust to fix the pension after giving weightage of service as contemplated under Rule 30 of the Pension rules. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the Port Trust contends that once the Charge Memo is issued to the petitioner before retirement and the disciplinary proceedings are instituted which are not concluded, it is deemed that the disciplinary proceedings are continued after retirement also. The petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation subject to the outcome of the result of the departmental proceedings against him which ended in imposition of penalty of censure against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. In view of the same, departmental proceedings are continued to be pending against him, the third respondent has sanctioned provisional pension as per Rule 69 of the Pension Rules. He also contends that ICWAI is in two parts i. e. , one Intermediate and another final. Unless the petitioner completes final and awarded with the certificate that he is a qualified professional, he is not entitled to weightage of service to his credit. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Statement of Recruitment Rules for the post of Cost Analyst clearly specifies that the post carries the benefit of Rule 30 of the pension Rules subject to the condition prescribed therein being fulfilled. One of the conditions which are prescribed under rule 30 of the Pension Rules, the government servant should be a Postgraduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential. Passing of intermediate is not a special qualification nor professional qualification. Unless he completes the final examination, he cannot claim benefit of added service as a matter of right. ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is advantageous to have a look at the Rule 30 of the Pension Rules. "30. Passing of intermediate is not a special qualification nor professional qualification. Unless he completes the final examination, he cannot claim benefit of added service as a matter of right. ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is advantageous to have a look at the Rule 30 of the Pension Rules. "30. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances: (1) A Government servant who retires from service or post after the 31st march, 1960 shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation but not for any other class of pension the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty five years or a period of five-years, whichever is less, if the service or post in which the government servant is appointed is one- (a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential; and (b) to which candidates of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited; provided that this concession shall not be admissible to a Government servant unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits government service is not less than ten years: provided further that this concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this rule. Provided also that this concession shall not be admissible to those who are eligible for counting their past service for superannuation pension unless they opt before the date of their retirement, which option once exercised shall be final, for the weightage of service under this sub- rule foregoing the counting of the past service. (2) A Government servant who is recruited at the age of thirty five years or more, may, within a period of three months from the date of his appointment, elect to forego his right to pension whereupon he shall be eligible to subscribe to a Contributory provident Fund. (3) The option referred to in sub- rule (2) once exercised, shall be final. (3) The option referred to in sub- rule (2) once exercised, shall be final. " ( 6 ) THE qualification prescribed for Cost analyst should be a graduate and have passed the Intermediate examination of the institute of Cost and Works Accountants of india or U. K. and should have at least one year experience in costing after passing intermediate examination and in the note appended to the said post, it is mentioned that the-post carries the benefit of Rule 30 of the Pension Rules subject to the conditions prescribed therein being fulfilled. One of the essential conditions for availing the benefit of added service for calculating pension is if the service or post to which the government servant is appointed is one for which Post-graduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential. Second proviso to Rule 30 provides that the said concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this rule ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is only possessing Intermediate qualification but he does not possess degree of ICWA of India or U. K. Unless the petitioner qualifies for the said degree, it cannot be said that he is having a specialist qualification. The essential qualification for appointment to the post of Cost Analyst is intermediate qualification of the ICWA of india or U. K. , but it cannot be treated as a specialist qualification for conferring benefits as per Rule 30 of the Pension Rules. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of added service for determining the pension cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. ( 8 ) THERE is some force in the second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to full pension but the authorities have released only provisional pension, hence there is a delay in payment of pension and as such the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from the date of retirement till the date of Actual payment. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 30-11-1997 and the provisional pension was sanctioned to him on 6-5-1998. The petitioner was served with a charge memo on 27-9-97 under Regulation 12 of Visakhapatnam Port Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) regulations, 1968, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 8-10-97, but before taking any further action, he was allowed to retire on 30-11-1997, provisional pension was sanctioned instead of granting full pension on 6-5-98. The respondent-Port trust in its counter stated that since the disciplinary proceedings are pending, provisional pension was released directing the petitioner to contact the pension section for making payment but the petitioner vide his representation dated 21-5-1998 stated that he is entitled to release of full pension but not provisional pension by giving weighate of added service. As the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of added service under Rule 30 of the Pension Rules, provisional pension was granted. ( 10 ) THE petitioner was awarded with punishment of censure on 31-8-1998 against which he filed an appeal. Even after punishment of censure was awarded, the petitioner was again sanctioned a provisional pension on 28-9-98 without releasing the full pension. Rule 69 of the pension Rules postulates sanctioning of provisional pension where a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or are continued. Similarly note appended to Rule 12 of the Regulations, 1968 specifies that if the penalty of withholding of increments affects the amount of pension payable to the employee, an enquiry shall invariably be held in the manner laid down in sub- regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 10. Once the proceedings for minor penalty are instituted against the Government servant and withholding of increments is one of the minor penalties specified under Regulation 8 of the Regulations, 1968, the authorities are justified in sanctioning provisional pension to the petitioner. Merely because the third respondent sanctioned provisional pension mala fides cannot be attributed to him in the absence of any other specific pleading in this regard by the petitioner. Merely because the third respondent sanctioned provisional pension mala fides cannot be attributed to him in the absence of any other specific pleading in this regard by the petitioner. In fact as per the Government of India decision in its Memo No. 134/17, 80 AVD I dated 28-2-1981 minor penalty proceedings and major penalty proceedings which are instituted against the Government servant while in service do not get concluded before the date of retirement, automatically become the proceedings under Rule 9. It is further clarified that since grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of minor penalty proceedings, action under Rule 9 ibid for withholding or withdrawing pension cannot be taken against a pensioner in respect of whom minor penalty proceedings had been instituted and have been continued after retirement. Such minor penalty proceedings continued after retirement do not have any effect on the pension in the matter of reducing or withholding of his pension. ( 11 ) IN spite of the above clarification, the authorities are not justified in sanctioning provisional pension even after conclusion of departmental proceedings with the imposition of punishment of censure on 31-8-98 by wrongly interpreting the rules that the appeal against the petitioner is pending. In view of the clarification given by the Government of India, the contention raised in the counter that as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending, the petitioner is not entitled to full pension, cannot be sustainable. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion and conclusions arrived, it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on pension amount which is wrongly withheld from 1-9-1998 i. e. , after conclusion of minor penalty proceedings till the date of payment of entire pension and the respondents are directed to release full pension with interest at 12% per annum from 1-9-98 till the date of payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above.