Judgment : The petitioner has initially filed O. A. No. 965 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of the third respondent dated 31.3.2001 with regard to the conditions imposed therein and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 36650 of 2005. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the municipal service in the year 1966 and he reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.2001. On reaching the age of superannuation by order of the Commissioner of Pollachi Municipality, dated 31.3.2001, the petitioner was permitted to retire, subject to two conditions that the time barred arrears for which the petitioner is responsible as a Revenue Officer to the tune of Rs. 8,853/- is to be withheld either from his DCRG or from his leave salary. The second condition is without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the charge memo dated 4.1.2001 issued in ref. No. 9024/2000/C1, petitioner is permitted to retire. Challenging this, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 965 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court and renumbered as writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, as far as the issue relating to condition No. 1 is concerned, even as per the impugned order that relates to time barred arrears, but no particulars have been given with regard to the period and with regard to the nature of the time barred arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that with regard to this allegation, no charges have been levelled against the petitioner, not even his explanation was not called for, but simply in the retirement order, this amount has been mentioned as arrears to be withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Tribunals order passed in O.A. No. 7986 of 2000 dated 5.2.2002 as far as time barred arrears are concerned, based on the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 3364 to 3369 of 1976 dated 23.11.1976 and W.P. No. 91 of 1982 dated 21.1.1988, it cannot be recovered. The principle laid down in the above said two judgments of this Court has been followed subsequently in W.P. Nos. The principle laid down in the above said two judgments of this Court has been followed subsequently in W.P. Nos. 14432 and 14433 of 1992 and wherein in order dated 2.2.1989 this Court has held “it is not a proved dereliction relating to the discipline and it is not attracted within the meaning of misconduct relating to the discipline.” This Court has also quashed the allegations relating to time barred arrears. Relying on this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in respect of first condition, no amount can be withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner. 4. As far as the second condition is concerned, based on the disciplinary proceedings, initiated in charge memo dated 4.1.2005 this condition has been imposed as per Rule 69(1)(b) of the Pension Rules which reads as follows: “No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.” Based on this provision, the second condition has been imposed in the impugned order. But according to the counsel for the petitioner the petitioner had retired in the year 2001 and even after the lapse of 5 years, final order has not been passed. Hence, according to the counsel, no amount can be withheld based on the second condition also. 5. Onthe other hand, the counsel for the respondents has contended that with regard to the time barred arrears, though no particulars were given, objections have not been raised with regard to the quantum mentioned as a time barred arrears by the petitioner. With regard to the second condition, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as per the Pension Rules, till the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled for the realisation of the DCRG. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the counsel. As far as condition No. 1 is concerned, it is covered by the judgment of this Court as stated above and as well as the judgment passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 7986 of 2000. As against these orders, no appeal has been filed. As is, the ratio laid down in these judgments are consequently applicable to the case of the petitioner. As such, based on the first condition, no amount can be withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner. As against these orders, no appeal has been filed. As is, the ratio laid down in these judgments are consequently applicable to the case of the petitioner. As such, based on the first condition, no amount can be withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner. With regard to the second condition the charges have been framed by the proceedings dated 4.1.2001 and the same has been received by the petitioner on 18.1.2001. But on 8.3.2001, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner saying that the above said charge memo has not been issued to him but on the same day he has submitted his reply to the allegations levelled. Even though this reply has been submitted on 8.3.2001 and the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.2001, even after the lapse of 5 years, final order has not been passed. Admittedly, charges were framed under the Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As such the allegations have been levelled in respect of the minor punishment for which no enquiry is needed. Therefore, only after receiving the reply from the concerned individual, the Department has to pass final orders. Even for this, no further steps have been taken by the municipality even after the lapse of 6 years. After serving for more than 25 years, based on these two issues DCRG has not been settled to the petitioner, which in my opinion is unsustainable. Because of the delay on the part of the respondents and for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be forced to wait for the payment of retirement benefits for more than 6 years which in my opinion defeats the very purpose of the payment of terminal benefits, the object of which is to enable the retired person to have a proper standard of living after retirement. Hence, in my opinion a direction to the respondents to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge memo dated 4.1.2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, will meet the ends of justice. Hence, in my opinion a direction to the respondents to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge memo dated 4.1.2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, will meet the ends of justice. If any failure on the part of the respondents to pass final orders within the stipulated time, withholding the amount which according to the Department is a loss, relating to the second condition, the balance amount has to be released to the petitioner on the completion of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observations the writ petition is ordered. No costs.