ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant retired as a Reader in Chemistry with the respondent College. The retirement was on 31-3-1998 but the appellant was not paid her retiral benefits. She filed a writ petition before the High Court. The respondents appeared before the learned Single Judge and contended that the appellant was liable to pay certain amounts on account of the value of books which were found missing and in respect of which a liability certificate had been issued by the respondent College on 22-9-1998. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant could not be made liable for the missing books and that the liability certificate was to that extent illegal. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the appellant be paid all the retiral benefits together with interest at 12% per annum with effect from six months from the date of the superannuation. In addition the learned Single Judge directed that the amount of interest should be recovered from the 5th respondent who was then acting as the Principal. 3. The matter was taken up before the Division Bench. Although the Court upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not at fault and could not be held liable for the missing books nevertheless the Division Bench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge insofar as it directed payment of interest. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. According to the appellant in view of the fact that the liability certificate was wrongly issued the appellant had been denied her retiral benefits by reason of the illegal action on the part of the respondent College. It has been submitted that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the direction for payment of interest. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 5 has submitted that there was no occasion for Respondent 5 to make a person liable for the payment of interest. Additionally, the management of the respondent College has submitted that the liability certificate was issued within a period of six months from the date of retirement and that it was the appellant herself who had refused to withdraw the money which she could have from the Accountant General in the State. 6. Additionally, the management of the respondent College has submitted that the liability certificate was issued within a period of six months from the date of retirement and that it was the appellant herself who had refused to withdraw the money which she could have from the Accountant General in the State. 6. In our opinion, since both the courts have concurrently held that the liability certificate ought not to have been issued, there was no reason for any delay in the payment of the appellants retiral benefits. We are also not convinced that the appellant could have withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits without giving up her challenge to the deduction on account of an alleged liability towards the missing books. We are of the view that the appellant had just cause to claim interest from the respondent College. Were it not for the illegality committed by the respondent College, the issues of delay and payment of interest would never have arisen. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent College to pay interest to the appellant for a period of three years commencing from 30-9-1998 to 30-9-2001 or until the appellant was in fact paid her retiral benefits, whichever is earlier together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The interest of the amount to be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date. In default, the rate of interest will be 12% per annum. 7. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.