Judgment :- The writ petitioner has joined as Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department in the year 1963 and promoted as Commercial Tax Officer and he was lastly posted as Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) at Vellore and he is in the Department for a period of thirty-six years and was allowed to retire on attainment of age of superannuation on 31.05.1999. The second respondent has issued a charge memo against the petitioner on 30.03.1999 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on the allegation that the petitioner has failed to take prompt and proper action on the revised D3 deviation proposal relating to M/s.MAT Agencies, Chennai, during his tenure as Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, North Assessment Circle, Chennai, during the year 1994. In respect of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 19.04.1999 denying the same. On 19.05.1999 the enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer reporting that the charges not proved. The first respondent by G.O.(D) No.181 dated 31.05.1999 has permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.05.1999 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. It is not in dispute that ultimately by G.O.(D) No.27 dated 23.02.2005 the charges against the petitioner were dropped, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from all charges. The petitioner has been sanctioned monthly pension, commuting value of pension and DCRG. 2. It is specifically admitted by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that the monthly pension, commuted value of pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner was sanctioned on 210. 2005 and the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was paid on 07.03.2006, the General Provident Fund on 012. 1999, commuted value of pension on 02.05.2006, while the General Provident Fund amount on 012. 1999 as well as the Earned Leave and UEL amounts were on 23.07.1999. Apart from that the arrears of difference in normal and provisional pension for the period from 01.06.1999 to 30.06.2005 was also paid on 28.06.2006. The regular pension arrears from July 2005 to May 2006 was paid to him on 02.05.2006 and the regular pension arrears for July 2005 to May 2006 was paid on 28.06.2006. Apart from that the arrears of difference in normal and provisional pension for the period from 01.06.1999 to 30.06.2005 was also paid on 28.06.2006. The regular pension arrears from July 2005 to May 2006 was paid to him on 02.05.2006 and the regular pension arrears for July 2005 to May 2006 was paid on 28.06.2006. The claim of the petitioner is that such amounts have been paid only after the Government passed G.O.(2D) No.27 dated 23.02.2005 dropping the charges, while the petitioner has retired from service on 30.05.1999, the date on which he was eligible for all such retirement benefits. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the Government has dropped the charges by the concerned G.O.(2D) No.27 dated 23.02.2005, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of any interest only from such date namely 23.02.2005. The said contention is not sustainable. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that there is no provision for the payment of interest in respect of pensionary benefits and delayed payments are also not sustainable. 4. As laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex court in the case of S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 44) even in the absence of any specific Rule or order providing for payment of interest the Court can grant relief on the basis of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India since the retirement benefits are not a bounty. The Supreme Court has held as follows:- “14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of “bounty” is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of “bounty” is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondent. 15. To us, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court ought to have entered into the merits of the matter which is based on documentary evidence is well taken. In our considered view, the writ petition ought to have been admitted by issuing rule nisi and ought to have been decided on merits. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition by a cryptic order which reads thus: “The petitioner seeks only payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. We, however, relegate the petitioner to avail of his remedies before the civil court, if so advised. Dismissed with the above observations” 16. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, must be quashed an set aside.” As stated above, there is no difficulty to conclude that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the belated payment in respect of the retirement benefits from the date of his retirement / super-annuation dated 30.05.1999. 5. In view of the same the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 04.06.2008 is set-aside with a direction to the first respondent to pay interest on the belated payment of the terminal benefits, as per the Rules governing the payment of DCRG and as per the rate payable in respect of the payment of the DCRG and such arrears shall be paid to the petitioner expeditiously, in any event, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.