Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had retired from service as Land Records Draughtsman, Taluk Office, Salem, on 31. 90. Even though he was due to retire on 31. 90, an order had been passed only on 10. 93, by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Salem, in Na.Ka.A6/4216/93, dated 10. 93, permitting him to retire from service, with effect from 31. 90, as the charges against the petitioner had been dropped. The petitioner has further stated that pensionary benefits due to him were not paid immediately on his retirement and instead they were paid belatedly as shown below: In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.4305 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26652 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was working as Land Records Draughtsman. While so, it was noticed that he had not returned certain records which he had obtained from the record room. Therefore, the charges had been framed against the petitioner, under rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In spite of the memo issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Salem, in Memo No.A5.15078/89, dated 30.12.89, the petitioner had not returned the records. Therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner could not be finalised before he had retired from service, on 31. 90, on his attaining the age of superannuation. After the retirement of the petitioner, proposals were sent to the Government for the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The Government in its letter 8098/SS3.1/93-2, Survey Department, dated 25. 93, had ordered the dropping of the charges against the petitioner and for sanctioning of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity due to him. The Assistant Director, Salem, had issued orders withdrawing the disciplinary charges initiated against the petitioner before he was permitted to retire on 31. 90. Since there was some delay in payment of the pensionary benefits, the Government had allowed the payment of interest of Rs.11,031/-to the petitioner for the belated payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity by a Government Order in G.O.(IT) No.490, Revenue Department, dated 8. 96. 90. Since there was some delay in payment of the pensionary benefits, the Government had allowed the payment of interest of Rs.11,031/-to the petitioner for the belated payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity by a Government Order in G.O.(IT) No.490, Revenue Department, dated 8. 96. However, the interest could not be given with regard to the delay in payment of other pensionary benefits, as there was no delay on the part of the Department to sanction the pensionary benefits. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that there has been a delay in payment of pensionary benefits due to the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the delay was due to the petitioner. 5. Though the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the delay was due to the charges framed against the petitioner for non submission of certain records, he has not been in a position to show that the delay in finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was caused by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31. 90, on attaining the age of superannuation, the charges framed against him had not been proved by a proper enquiry, as contemplated by law. 6. In such circumstances, it is clear that the delay in payment of the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner is not attributable to the petitioner and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner the appropriate interest on the said amounts due to him. Hence, the respondents are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts due to the petitioner as pensionary benefits, from the date on which they fell due till the date of their actual payment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.