Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.59 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 25.1.96, quash the same insofar as the first respondent denied medical invalid pension to the petitioner for the period 17.4.84 to 24.1.96 and direct the respondents to pay medical invalid pension to the petitioner with effect from 17.4.84 with all monetary benefits with interest. 2. Notice of motion was ordered by P.Sathasivam, J., on 6.3.2000. K.Sampath, J., admitted the writ petition on 12.8.2000. Though notice has been served on the respondents on 19.10.2000, yet the respondents have not filed a counter. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader made her submissions and contested the proceedings as there is not much of factual controversy. 3. Heard Mr. S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. According to the petitioner, she joined as a teacher in JMA Elementary School on 21.7.70, which is a private school receiving grant. The petitioner continued in the said school till 16.4.84. Due to diagnostic with right Hemiparesis following cortical venous thrombosis, the petitioner could not attend the school from 11.11.82 to 8.2.83. The petitioner was referred to a medical board. Thereafter, the petitioner once again reported for duty, but the school management declined to take back the petitioner to service as the medical board has by its confidential letter has recommended that the petitioner be placed in light works instead of regular teaching work. 5. The management of the school declined to provide alternate work as recommended by the medical board as there was no other post with less work load. The petitioner was without employment and loss of salary. The petitioner's request for examination by another medical board did not find favour. The District Educational Officer, Kanchipuram, by letter dated 16.8.85 informed the petitioner that there is no alternative work that could be provided to the petitioner as per the recommendation of the medical board and, hence, it is not possible for them to recommend the petitioner for alternate work. The petitioner received a memo from the school management to which she submitted her reply on 23.1.91 contending that she shall not be relieved from service. 6. The petitioner received a memo from the school management to which she submitted her reply on 23.1.91 contending that she shall not be relieved from service. 6. The Correspondent of the school required the petitioner to secure a medical certificate from the medical board to submit papers for medical invalidation pension. On 17.4.84, the school intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has been relieved on retirement and the question regarding the invalidation on medical grounds does not arise at that distant point of time and that no medical certificate is required. However, on 18.11.92, the Correspondent recommended the petitioner for invalidation pension and the same was forwarded to the Assistant District Educational Officer, Parangimalai Circle. The 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 17.2.92 sanctioned invalid pension from 17.4.84, while condoning the delay caused. Though pension proposal was submitted with all enclosures earlier, but the same was delayed from stage to stage. After a long delay and repeated representations and reminders, the pension papers reached the office of the Pay and Accounts Officer during 1993, which was returned for orders condoning the delay as per the rules. The Deputy Secretary to Government also directed the District Educational Officer to take necessary action against the person, who delayed the pension papers. 7. By the impugned Government Order dated 25.1.96, the petitioner was granted invalid pension on medical grounds from the date of issue of the order (i.e.) 25.1.96. Thus the petitioner has been denied invalid pension payable from 17.4.84, the date of actual discharge till the date of actual payment, though the petitioner is being paid invalid pension from the date of the Government Order. Being aggrieved by the denial of arrears, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of Rule 36 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled for payment of invalid pension from the date of medical invalidation. The delay, if any, is on the part of the respondents, who alone delayed the sanction of pension at every stage as they were under a misconception of rules and fract and there is no justification at all to deny pension for a long number of years and for no fault of the petitioner. Rule 36 mandates sanction of invalid pension from the date of medical invalidation and not from a future date. Rule 36 mandates sanction of invalid pension from the date of medical invalidation and not from a future date. Though in the present case, in terms of Rule 82 of the Pension Rules, relaxation has been ordered by the Government in respect of the statutory rule, but for no fault of the petitioner she has been denied of invalid pension for a considerable number of years. The petitioner has submitted papers without delay and the delay, if any, is on the part of the respondents and on that score there is no reason to deny pension to the petitioner. The respondents should have acted without unreasonable delay and their inaction is the reason for the delay. For delay and inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been penalised. 9. Though it is vehemently contended that in terms of Rule 82 under which relaxation has been ordered, which could be prospective only as sought to be contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court finds that for no fault of the petitioner she has been denied of invalid pension for a considerable period. In fact, G.O. Ms. No.59 dated 25.1.96 proceeds as if the medical certificate was received by the District Educational Officer on 3.9.92 and, therefore, final invalidation order was issued only on 17.12.92, which is factually incorrect. 10. The material portion of the Government Order reads thus :- "Tmt. J.Padmavathy has served as teacher in the J.M.A. Elementary School, Pammal Saidapet Educational District for the period from 21.7.70 to 10.9.70 and from 9.2.72 to 16.4.84. She has rendered a total service of 12 years 3 months and 29 days. She was relieved from service on invalidation on medical ground on 17.4.84 F.N. Her medical certificate was examined and referred to the medical Board on 30.3.84. The report of the medical Board was received by the District Educational Officer, Saidapet on 3.9.92. Final orders of invalidation were issued by the District Educational Officer only on 17.12.92." 11. The contents of the above paragraph is factually not correct. As seen from the fact that the Chief Educational Officer, Kanchipuram on 16.8.85 itself, on receipt of a letter from the school management has ordered that there is no scope for giving light duty. Subsequently, on 17.4.84, the petitioner was relieved. The contents of the above paragraph is factually not correct. As seen from the fact that the Chief Educational Officer, Kanchipuram on 16.8.85 itself, on receipt of a letter from the school management has ordered that there is no scope for giving light duty. Subsequently, on 17.4.84, the petitioner was relieved. The medical board, when referred to, took the stand that a fresh report is not required since the petitioner has been relieved on 17.4.84 on medical invalidation, which stand is on a misconception as it is not a regular retirement at all. The District Educational Officer, Saidapet, and Asst. Educational Officer as well as Directorate of School Education have taken years together to forward the pension proposal and this has resulted in delay as well as denial for a considerable number of years. For such delay the petitioner shall not be penalised. 12. The letter from the Under Secretary to Government dated 11.8.94 addressed to the Director of Elementary Education would explain when the medical certificate has been forwarded on 30.3.84 by the Educational Officer, Saidapet, and the said Officer has been called upon to explain as to why the opinion received from the medical board has remained unattended for years together without submission of pension proposal and also the Under Secretary to Government directed action being taken against the concerned for the delay, which is inordinate and the failure to take appropriate action. 13. Thus it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, much less a default in making the application for grant of invalid pension, besides, production of medical certificate. When the medical board has sent its opinion, the concerned Educational Officer and Chief Educational Officer should have taken appropriate steps for forwarding the proposal for sanction of invalid pension. The school management also contributed for the delays. Even during the year 1984, the petitioner submitted her pension proposal with necessary particulars, but the Educational Officer at all levels delayed the matter till 1993, which required condonation of delay. The very fact that the Under Secretary to Government has directed the Director of Elementary Education Officer to initiate action against those who failed to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner would show that the petitioner is not at fault. 14. The very fact that the Under Secretary to Government has directed the Director of Elementary Education Officer to initiate action against those who failed to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner would show that the petitioner is not at fault. 14. Hence, the very preamble portion of the Government order, which is impugned proceeds on a factual misconception and this has resulted in the Government sanctioning pension from the date of the Government Order. There was no default or delay on the part of the petitioner and she has done whatever possible she could do. For the delay on the part of either the Assistant Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer or the Chief Educational Officer or the Directorate of Education, the petitioner cannot be denied of her valuable rights. 15. The petitioner, who has been medically invalidated should have been sanctioned pension without delay and her case should have been considered with compassion and out of turn as well. Not only there has been delay, the petitioner has been denied of pension for a considerable period and this would amount to penalising the petitioner. Though the interpretation placed on Rule 82 by the learned Additional Government Pleader could be sustained, but on facts, this Court holds that the respondents should have sanctioned pension from the date on which the pension papers were submitted as the petitioner was medically invalidated. The denial of arrears is arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed. 16. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed quashing that portion of the impugned Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.59 Education and Technology Department dated 25.1.96 in directing payment of invalid pension from the date of the said Government Order and, consequently direct the respondents to pay medical invalidation pension from 1.5.1984 onwards, but without interest. The respondents are directed to sanction the arrears of pension within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order and disburse all the arrears thereof within four months from the date of this order without interest and in case the payment is delayed beyond six months, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% from 25.1.1996 onwards till date of payment. The parties shall bear their respective costs.