S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) WHEREAS this Court in wpno. 4570 of 1998 by its order dated 19-2-1998 directed the respondent herein to accept the voluntary retirement application filed by the petitioner as per G. O. Ms. No. 282 agriculture and Co-operation (FPI) department dated 8-7-1997 and give all terminal benefits to the petitioner by deducting the amount due to the Corporation only, as envisaged in the above Government order and the Circular dated 11-7-1997, within a period of two months, the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner only on 2-6-2001. In terms of the order of this court the terminal benefits ought to have been paid to the petitioner on or before 18-4-1998. Thus, there is inordinate delay of 3 years 1 month and 14 days in implementing the order of this Court. The explanation offered by the respondent/ contemner in not implementing the order of this Court within the stipulated time is found in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed by the respondent dated 7-6-2001. It reads-"i respectfully submit that in pursuant to the orders of the Hon ble Court dated 22-1-1998 which was rendered in WP no. 28456 of 1997 the Corporation requested the Government for releasing of the necessary funds for the payment of voluntary retirement benefits to the petitioners. In the meantime the petitioner filed CC No. 605 of 1998 for non-implementation of the orders dated 22-1-1998 and the Hon ble Court was pleased to commit the then Vice- chairman and Managing Director for contempt. I respectfully submit that the then Vice-Chairman and Managing director filed Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2001. I submit that the above contempt appeal was disposed on 29-12-2000 by confirming the orders of the single Judge in CC No. 605 of 1998 without upholding the orders of conviction by fixing the time frame for payment of voluntary retirement benefits by 31-1-2001. While the matter the Government has released funds for the payment of the voluntary retirement benefits to the petitioner herein. I humbly submit that certain funds were made available for payment of V. R. benefits only at the end of January 2001. While the matters stood the then Vice- chairman and Managing Director was retired due to superannuation on 31-1-2001. I humbly submit that Sri S. K. Das IFS. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A. P. Forest Development Corporation was given additional charge. While the matters stood the then Vice- chairman and Managing Director was retired due to superannuation on 31-1-2001. I humbly submit that Sri S. K. Das IFS. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A. P. Forest Development Corporation was given additional charge. After he assumed the charge he was appraised of the above cases and he called for the 197th Board Meeting on 27-3-2001 and ultimately the Board passed the resolution to pay the voluntary retirement benefit amounts. After the Board meeting was held I was posted as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director and I joined on 29-3-2001, as Vice-Chairman and managing Director. Immediately I have reviewed the pending matters of the Court and orders to be complied by the corporation. Accordingly I have taken immediate action to process V. R. claim of Sri K, Venugopala Reddy in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors no. 3351 dated 27-3-2001 as per the orders of the Hon ble Court in CA No. 1 of 2000 (29-12-2000) and released the voluntary retirement payment vide cheque No. 629587 dated 1-6-2001 for rs. 2,72,173/- in full and final settlement of the matters in WP No. 4570 of 1998 and CC No. 531 of 2001. " ( 2 ) THIS explanation could hardly be a valid ground or justification for the respondent-Corporation, or for that matter to this Court, to deny interest to the petitioner. At the most, the explanation offered by the respondent may constitute a tenable defence not to proceed against him departmental ly for the lapse because, according to the respondent, the Corporation did not receive the required sum of money in time from the Government to implement the order of this Court. The petitioner is in no way responsible for the delay nor contributed in any way for the delay either directly or indirectly. It will be totally unfair and unjust for the public authorities like the a. P. State Agro-Industries Development corporation to withhold the legitimate voluntary retirement benefits due to the petitioner for an inordinate period of 3 years and more and say that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest simply because the money required was not received from the Government. ( 3 ) IT was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there are certain charges levelled against the petitioner regarding his handling of the finances in the business of the Corporation resulting in loss to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and odd. Suffice it to state that the said claim of the respondent remains as an allegation only. There was no impediment for the respondent-Corporation in proceeding against the petitioner-delinquent and complete the enquiry within a reasonable time and passing appropriate orders because in WP No. 24970 of 1997 filed in this court against the initiation of the disciplinary action against the petitioner, this Court directed that the enquiry might go on but the disciplinary authority shall not pass final orders awaiting further orders. It was submitted at the bar by Sri A. K. Jaya Prakash rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the said writ petition was also withdrawn by the petitioner and the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by order dated 4-7-2001. ( 4 ) THE Courts have quite often said and reiterated that the pensionary and fringe benefits should be given to the retiring employees without any undue delay and invariably wherever the Courts found inordinate delay in paying the pensionary and fringe benefits to the retired employees awarded interest ranging from 12% to 18%. [ see O. P. Gupta v. Union of india, 1987 (4 ). SCC 328, State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 , and State Sank of India v. AN. Gupta, air 1998 SC 159 . ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter and taking into account the facts-situation of this case, I direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on a sum of Rs. 2,72,173/- for the period from 19-4-1998 to 2-6-2001 (both days inclusive) within a period of three (3) months from today. Having due regard to the explanation, offered by the respondent-Officer at paragraph 14 of the affidavit, I do not think it appropriate to punish him. Therefore, notice in Form No. 1 issued against the respondent is discharged. ( 6 ) THE contempt case is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above direction.