Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with his order dated 6.12.2000 bearing Memo.No.22014/720/C.II/89-10 and the order of the third respondent bearing No.073188/G.6/G.61/2002-2 dated 28.8.2002 in so far as it denies the petitioner's pensionary benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement on 21.6.1988 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner herein with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement on 21.6.1988 with interest thereon. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for this case are as follows:- The petitioner was employed in the Electricity Board as Turbine Operator. He joined service on 1.10.1960. It is seen that he had obtained a housing loan for a sum of Rs.33,500/= but he had not utilised the same for building the house. Therefore charges were framed against him and an enquiry was also conducted. In the enquiry he was found guilty of the charges framed. After completing all the formalities, a punishment of dismissal was imposed by the authorities against him. This order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ appeal. Considering the facts of this case, this court passed an order that since the authorities have not considered the petitioner's request of taking a sympathetic view, set aside the order of dismissal dated 21.6.1988. Thereafter the impugned order came to be passed, whereby the order of dismissal was converted into one of compulsory retirement. The impugned order reads as follows:- "Accordingly, the Chief Engineer/ Distribution/Chennai hereby orders that the punishment ordered by the Superintending Engineer/Chennai Electricity DistributionCircle /South in Memo No.290/Admn.4/A.2/DP/88-1 dated 21.6.1988 imposing a punishment of dismissal is modified as "compulsory retirement." It is further ordered that Thiru V.S.Mani, Turbine Operator is eligible for all terminal benefits. However, he is eligible for pension only with effect from 16.8.2000 i.e. the date of pronouncement of judgment in W.P.381 of 1998 by the Honourable High Court of Madras. He is entitled to draw pension with effect from 16.8.2000." Challenging the above order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal has been modified as one of compulsory retirement. He is entitled to draw pension with effect from 16.8.2000." Challenging the above order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal has been modified as one of compulsory retirement. Therefore he is entitled to all the monetary benefits including pension from that date of his compulsory retirement. But the authorities have passed a specific order stating that the petitioner is entitled to pension only from 16.8.2000, the date of pronouncement of the order in writ appeal by this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this order is invalid and the petitioner should have been given pension from the date on which he was compulsorily retired namely, from 21.6.1988. onwards. 4. Heard the arguments for the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have not filed any counter. The learned counsel for the respondents while arguing would contended that the period namely, 21.6.1988 to 16.8.2000 was considered as leave that he was eligible and therefore he was not granted any monetary benefits. Since the order of compulsory retirement was passed only on 6.12.2000, the pension was ordered to be paid only from 16.8.2000. 5. When the impugned order specifically states that the punishment ordered by the Superintending Engineer dated 21.6.1988 imposing the punishment of dismissal is "modified" as compulsory retirement, it means that the petitioner is compulsorily retired from 21.6.1988; hence he is entitled to all the benefits including pension from that date of his compulsory retirement namely, from 21.6.1988. But strangely in the impugned order it has been stated that the petitioner is eligible for pension only with effect from 16.8.2000, the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the Division Bench of this court in the Writ Appeal. It is common knowledge that when the impugned order is set aside, the order is set aside from the date on which it was passed. This court on 16.8.2000 passed an order setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 21.6.1988, which means that the said order is set aside with effect from 21.6.1988. But this has been deliberately construed wrongly by the respondents that the order takes effect only on 16.8.2000. This sort of twisting the order of this court is not appreciated and cannot be tolerated. The Electricity Board, which is a statutory authority should not indulge in such practice. But this has been deliberately construed wrongly by the respondents that the order takes effect only on 16.8.2000. This sort of twisting the order of this court is not appreciated and cannot be tolerated. The Electricity Board, which is a statutory authority should not indulge in such practice. It is unfortunate that the Electricity Board has chosen to pass such an order. Further when a person has compulsorily retired from 21.6.1988, it is not known as to what was his status, according to the respondents, from 21.6.1988 till 16.8.2000. The reply given by the learned counsel for the respondents that he was to be considered to be "on leave" for which he was eligible cannot be accepted. By no stretch of imagination, for twelve years, it can be said that a person is eligible for leave. Therefore the impugned order is passed without any basis and it is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get his pension from 21.6.1988. 6. Inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed deliberately, the person, who passed this order is accountable for passing such illegal and deliberate order contrary to the order of this court. The amount for which the petitioner is eligible from 21.6.1988 to 16.8.2000 shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board in turn shall recover the interest payable by the department from the person, who had passed this order from his pay or it shall be recovered from his pension, if he had already retired from service. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.