Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. The petitioner has filed writ in the nature of mandamus seeking release of retiral benefits. 2. Upon notice having been issued, respondents have admitted that the petitioner retired as Head Assistantfrom Haryana Government service on 31.01.2007 and the following retiral benefits were immediately released to him: Leave encashment-Rs. 1,31,580/- on 30.3.200/,G.I.S. Rs. 13,350/- on 30.03.2007 and G.P. Fund-Rs. 4,31,860/- on 27.04.2007. As regards the payment of other retiral dues like pension, commutation of pension and gratuity, it has been submitted that prior to joining the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner the petitioner was working with Urban Estate, Panchkula from 6.6.1972 to 30.09.1978 as Peon/Clerk. The department sought a clarification from the Urban Estate, Panchkula as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner is a Government service or not. Reply to the said clarification was received vide letter dated 1.8.2007, in which it was accepted that it was a service in Government department. On receipt of such clarification, immediate necessary action was initiated and pension amounting to Rs. 5078/- was released on 8.1.2008, revised pension of Rs. 5132/-was released on 18.01.2008, commutation of pension of Rs. 2,54,932/ - was released on 8.1.2008, revised commutation of pension of Rs. 2, 57, 569/- was released on 18.01.2008 and gratuity of Rs. 2.30,555/- was released on 20.02.2008. It has been pleaded that although some delay in releasing the retiral benefits has occurred but the same was neither intentional nor deliberate but was the result of circumstances explained above. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has accepted that the retiral benefits due have been released to him but has prayed that due to the delay in payment of pensionary benefits, he is entitled to interest @ 12%. He has relied upon the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) RSJ 647. 4. We have considered the matter and are of the view that the action, which has been initiated by the respondents such as requiring the clarification with regard to the nature of service rendered by the petitioner, should have been done well in advance. The instructions dealing with the pensionary matters clearly state that the pension case of an retiring employee has to be initiated six months before the date of retirement. The instructions dealing with the pensionary matters clearly state that the pension case of an retiring employee has to be initiated six months before the date of retirement. The intention of these instructions is that on the date of retirement, all pensionary benefits which are due to an employee who has worked all through his life for the Government are paid to him and he should go out satisfied and feel that he has been rewarded for the hard-work which he has put in all through his service carrier. The delay in making payment of the retiral benefits is attributable to the inaction/delayed action on the part of the department and thus the petitioner is entitled to interest on such delayed payment of his pensionary benefits. 5. This petition is allowed with directions to the respondents to pay the petitioner interest @ 9% on the delayed payment on pensionary benefits from the date of accrual of the same till the date of actual payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.