Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T. Seenivasan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents and Mr. M. Devadoss, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was selected for recruitment to the post of Gramasevak, on 2. 1959, by the Madras Public Service Commission. After the necessary training, the petitioner was posted as Gramasevak, Grade II, from 112. 1961. The applicant was promoted as Gramasevak, Grade I, from 17. 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted as an Extension Officer, on 30.12.1988, and he had continued as such till the date of his retirement, i.e. 30.6.1993. 3. It has been further stated that while the petitioner was in service, he had applied for medical leave, from 13. 92 to 4. 92, while he was employed in Sivakasi Block. The petitioner had again gone on medical leave from 24. 92 and therefore, he was asked to appear before the medical board. The medical board had recommended further extension of medical leave up to 8. 92. On expiry of the leave, the petitioner was transferred to Vembakottai Block. 4. The petitioner has further stated that as there was sufficient leave in his credit, the medical leave requested by the petitioner should have been sanctioned, immediately, on receipt of the certificate from the medical board. However, it was only on 21. 1993, the third respondent had forwarded the leave application to the first respondent, along with the certificate issued by the medical board. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had submitted the proposals for regularizing the training period as duty period and for declaring completion of probation with retrospective effect from 17. 59 to 2. 93 in A4/303/93, dated 2. 93, through the second respondent, along with the service register. There was an inordinate delay on the part of the first respondent before he had issued the orders regularizing the training period. However, no orders were issued to sanction the medical leave. On 26. 93, the first respondent had issued an order in his Letter No.P2/5408/93, permitting the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.93. However, he had failed to direct the third respondent to expedite the submission of the pension papers. However, no orders were issued to sanction the medical leave. On 26. 93, the first respondent had issued an order in his Letter No.P2/5408/93, permitting the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.93. However, he had failed to direct the third respondent to expedite the submission of the pension papers. After a reminder has been sent to the third respondent, the petitioner was informed, on 7. 93, that the leave papers had been lost. 5. It has been further submitted by the proceedings in Na.Ka.5408/93/P2, dated 111. 1993, the first respondent had sanctioned the medical leave for the petitioner, from 24. 92 to 8. 92. However, on 19. 93, the pension papers of the petitioner had been returned, contrary to the Rules 66, 67 and 68 of the Pension Rules. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the belated disbursement of retrial benefits. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.1541 of 1995, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.18786 of 2006. 6. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the Government service as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II, on 112. 61 and retired from service on superannuation, on 30.93. Regarding the sanction of medical leave, from 24. 92 to 8. 92, it has been stated that the petitioner had applied for medical leave without producing the medical certificates at the Panchayat Union Office, Sivakasi. The leave proposals, with the copy of the leave applications and a copy of the medical certificates were received in the Collectorate only, on 18. 93. The said leave period was regularized as per the Collectors proceedings in Roc.No.P2.5408/93, dated 111. 1993. Since the petitioner had not applied for the sanction of provisional pension, it was not granted to him. In fact, the petitioner had submitted the pension proposals during the month of May, 1993, before regularizing the leave period, from 24. 92 to 8. 92. He did not take steps to submit his leave proposal in a complete form along with the medical certificate, by August, 1992. The petitioner had taken a long time to submit the copy of the leave application and the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board, on 8. 93. 92 to 8. 92. He did not take steps to submit his leave proposal in a complete form along with the medical certificate, by August, 1992. The petitioner had taken a long time to submit the copy of the leave application and the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board, on 8. 93. Since the petitioner had caused the delay in submitting his leave proposal and his pension proposal, it cannot be said that there has been an administrative delay in sanctioning the leave and pension due to the petitioner. Further, while the petitioner was working as an Extension Officer at Sivakasi Block, he had applied for leave on medical certificate for various periods. However, his salary was being paid to him every month without delay, pending the decision as per G.O.Ms.No.278, Finance, dated 211. 1979. Therefore, the relief’s prayed for by the petitioner may not be granted by this Court. 7. In view of the averments made by the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, it is seen that there has been a delay in payment of the retrial benefits due to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show sufficient cause or reason to deny the petitioner, the relief’s prayed for by him. No records have been produced before this Court to show that the delay has been caused due to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner has claimed that the delay in disbursing of the retrial benefits, due to the petitioner, has been entirely due to the respondents. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to award interest on the belated payment of the arrears of the retrial benefits due to him, from the date on which it became due till the date of its actual payment, is tenable. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court the decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein, directions have been issued for payment of interest on the belated payment of retrial benefits. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: i) Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court the decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein, directions have been issued for payment of interest on the belated payment of retrial benefits. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: i) Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P and others ( 2000(2) SLR 686 ). ii) Gorakhpur University and others Vs. Dr. shitla Prasad Nagendra and others ( 2001(6) SCC 591 ) and iii) Rakesh Kumar Jain and another Vs. State of U.P and another [2007(2) MLJ 663 (SC)]. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court is pleased to direct the respondents to pay the interest to the petitioner, on the belated payment of the arrears of the retrial benefits due to him, at the rate of 12%, calculated from the date when the amounts, became due till the date of its actual payment. 12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court finds that nothing has been shown by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to deny the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been in a position to show that the delay in payment of the arrears of the retrial benefits is due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of the retrial benefits, due to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date when the amounts fell due till the date of its actual payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is stands allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.