Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had started his career as a Health Assistant in the Municipal Service in the year 1957. In the month of November, 1993, while he was working as a Sanitary Inspector, he was allowed to retire by an order, dated 30.11.1993, on his reaching the age of superannuation. No disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner while he was working as a Sanitary Inspector. However, the retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner in spite of repeated requests. Therefore, the petitioner had issued a legal notice, dated 11. 1994, demanding payment of his retiral benefits. Only thereafter, by an order, dated 38. 1994, the petitioner was paid the pension due to him from 9. 1994 and he was also paid the provident fund amount. In spite of the order having been passed on 38. 1994, the payment was made only in the month of January, 1995. Further, the respondent had sent a letter, dated 111. 1994, stating that the delay in payment was due to insufficiency of funds. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6854 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26888 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that all the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,13,714/-, were paid to him by a cheque, dated 11. 95, drawn on the State Bank of India. The petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the cheque, on 111. 1995. Further, the regular monthly pension from 9. 94, Dearness Allowance dues from January 1995 to July 1995, are being sent, regularly, to the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner in Canara Bank, Gobichettipalayam. The delay in payment of the amounts due to the petitioner has been only due to the paucity of funds in the Municipal Employees Pension fund and it is neither willful nor wanton. 4. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court, a communication received from the Directorate of Local Fund Audit, dated 26. 2008, which is as follows: "It is submitted that the appellant Thiru. 4. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court, a communication received from the Directorate of Local Fund Audit, dated 26. 2008, which is as follows: "It is submitted that the appellant Thiru. K.S. Vaidyanathan retired as Sanitary Inspector in Gobichettipalayam Municipality on 30.93. His pensionary benefits were certified by the Local Fund Audit Department in R.Dis.56686/Ka2(2)/94, dt.38. 94. The retirement benefits were paid to him on 95. As the Municipal Employee are transferable from one Municipality to another, the Municipality in which a person retires has to bear the entire pension expenditure. Hence, Government entrusted the work of disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits to Local Fund Audit Department. This procedure is in vogue from 11. 70 onwards. Pension contribution was collected from all Municipalities on the maximum of the time scale for all sanctioned posts by Local Fund Audit Department. Initially the total collection of the pension contribution was more than sufficient for the payment of pension and other retirement benefits. The rate of pension contribution was periodically raised to match the annual payments. But in course of time the total pension contribution did not match the ever growing pension bill due to the revision of rates of pension and sanction of D.A to the pensioners. Moreover certain Municipalities defaulted in payment of pension contribution. Hence, the Municipal Employees Pension Fund ran into financial difficulties and the payment of monthly pension had to be maintained with great difficulty. In order to meet the deficit the Government was approached to provide financial assistance by means of Grants. Based on this office letter No.38477/PP3/95, dated 26. 1995, Government released a sum of Rs.10 crores in Government Order 180/MA & WS Dept., dt.19. 95 and the amount was credited to the Municipal Employees Pension Fund, on 110. 95, and all pending cases were settled from 10/95 onwards. Hence, the delay in settling the claim is only due to the above reasons and hence there was no wilful and wanton delay. In order to find a permanent solution to this problem Government have formulated a policy to release the funds required to Municipal Employees Pension Funds in advance from the SFC grants payable to the Municipalities in G.O.Ms.No.110/MA&WS Dept., dt.5. In order to find a permanent solution to this problem Government have formulated a policy to release the funds required to Municipal Employees Pension Funds in advance from the SFC grants payable to the Municipalities in G.O.Ms.No.110/MA&WS Dept., dt.5. 97 and based on the Government Order the required funds are being disbursed to this office well in advance from the year 1997-98 and the pensionary benefits are disbursed then and there immediately on sanction without any delay." 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, it is seen that there has been a delay in the payment of the retiral benefits due to the petitioner. Though it has been stated by the respondent that the delay has been caused due to insufficiency of funds, nothing has been shown to substantiate the said statement. No records have been produced before this Court in support of the claims made by the respondent. Even otherwise, it is clear that the delay has been caused only due to the respondent. In such circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay the amounts due to the petitioner as retiral benefits, along with the interest at 12% per annum, calculated from the date on which they fell due till the date of their actual payment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.