J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a retired Chief Officer of junagadh Nagarpalika (later on, converted to "junagadh municipal Corporation"), has claimed retiral dues, by filing this petition, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, as the respondent - Nagarpalika has not paid the retiral dues without any reason, despite the fact that the petitioner retired in August 2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, initially, came to be appointed as an Auditor with the respondent - Nagarpalika on 17-07-1969. In 1997, the charge of the Chief Officer was given to the petitioner. He had filed an application before the Labour Court, Junagadh, for his promotion and restraining the respondent - Nagarpalika from reverting him from the post of Chief Officer. The Labour Court, also, granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. One, Karmalbhai Punjabhai Katara had filed the writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 8784 of 1997, against the stay order granted by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner, which came to be withdrawn on 18-04-1998 with some directions by this Court in the said petition. ( 3 ) THE respondent again initiated preliminary inquiry proceedings against the petitioner for charge of misappropriation for the period from 19-11-1997 to 09-12-1997 during which period the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Officer as In-charge Chief Officer. In the preliminary inquiry, the respondent found him `not guilty. Unfortunately, the petitioner was suspended from the service on 11-03-1998. Despite elapse of two years, the respondent-Nagarpalika did not start any regular departmental Inquiry and not even filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. It is in this context, the petitioner moved the authority to revoke his suspension and the request was accepted, and the suspension of the petitioner came to be revoked by an Order dated 14-06-2000 and a Resolution dated 18-06-2000. That is how the petitioner resumed the duties from 14-06-2000. ( 4 ) THE petitioner retired from service on 31-08-2000 and he was allowed to retire so by the respondent by passing an order. Despite the fact that no Departmental inquiry proceedings were pending, as there is no dispute about this aspect, the respondent-Nagarpalika has not paid legal dues to the petitioner like P. F. , Gratuity, encashment Leave, etc. for the period from May 2000 to august 2000 and Salary for the period from May 2000 to august 2000. Despite the fact that no Departmental inquiry proceedings were pending, as there is no dispute about this aspect, the respondent-Nagarpalika has not paid legal dues to the petitioner like P. F. , Gratuity, encashment Leave, etc. for the period from May 2000 to august 2000 and Salary for the period from May 2000 to august 2000. Despite several efforts made by the petitioner for getting his legal dues from the respondent-Nagarpalika, he could not succeed. He also sent reminders. The respondent-authority has also issued `no Dues Certificate, certifying that the respondent-Nagarpalika has nothing due from the petitioner as on 01-09-2000. ( 5 ) THE respondent-Nagarpalika has not filed any affidavit-in-reply. No material is relied on by the respondent. Apart from that, it is an admitted fact that no departmental action is pending. The respondent-authority has delayed in making the payment of amount due and payable to the petitioner upon his retirement. ( 6 ) AFTER having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and submissions of the learned Advocates and the relevant proposition of law emanating from the Service jurisprudence, the petitioner, who has retired wef 31-08-2000, has not received his retiral dues. Despite several attempts, representations and reminders given to the respondent-authority, no reasonable or rational ground is offered as to why the retiral dues are thus so far not paid. Apart from absence of filing an affidavit-in-reply and the averments made in the petitioner, there is no material on record which would even remotely disentitle or delay the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. The approach and the stand taken by the respondent-Nagarpalika is unsustainable in not paying the retiral dues to the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to all dues payable upon his retirement from the service of the respondent-authority. ( 7 ) THE petition is allowed and the respondent-Nagarpalika is directed to calculate and pay the amount due and payable, as per the policy, on the retirement of the petitioner, including the difference of salary payable to the petitioner for the period during which he remained under suspension, within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of writ or intimation by the Registry or from the date of obtaining the Certified Copy, whichever occurs first. The respondent-authority is also directed to pay an amount of interest at the rate of 6% p. a. for delayed and deferred payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. Rule made absolute without any order as to costs. .