JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph C.J. (Oral) 1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The appellants were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3116 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the order dated 22.03.2006 impugned in this writ appeal. 3. The appellants are the legal representatives of Sri Sharfuddin who died on 16.12.2005. Sri Sharfuddin was an employee of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation who retired on superannuation on 31.07.2002. As per Annexure-F order dated 30.07.2002, the respondent-Corporation permitted the appellant to retire from service on 31.07.2002 subject to the condition that the loss of Rs.22,34,427/- caused during transport and Rs.6,64,610/- caused in the godown will be audited and losses if any occurred during the period of appellant’s service will be deducted out of his terminal benefits and that if any other financial liability was found, the same will be deducted out of his terminal benefits. As per Annexure-G order dated 23.08.2002 an amount of Rs.10,39,402.29 ps. was sanctioned as the retiral benefits and after deducting an amount of Rs. 7,97,472/the balance amount of Rs.2,41,930.29 ps. was paid to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3116 of 2003 praying for a direction to the respondent to release the withheld terminal benefits as per Annexure-G order dated 23.08.2002. He also prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay 18 per cent interest on the withheld amount from the date of retirement till the date of release. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Sharfuddin died and the legal representatives were brought on record. When the writ petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo indicating that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.8,05,728/- to the wife of the deceased by way of two cheques dated 14.03.2006. In the memo, the respondent prayed that the Court may record full and final settlement of the claims of the petitioners and dismiss the writ petition as settled out of Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed that the receipt of the amount was in full and final settlement of the claim and that the petitioners had waived their claim for interest. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed that the receipt of the amount was in full and final settlement of the claim and that the petitioners had waived their claim for interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that in similar cases the Court had awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on such delayed payment. But the learned Single Judge took the view that it was not necessary for the Court to examine the claim for interest in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to enforce the claim if any, in any other manner known to law. Aggrieved by the denial of interest on delayed payment, the petitioners have filed this writ appeal. 4. It is significant that before the retirement of the petitioner no disciplinary action was taken against him and any loss caused to the respondent-Corporation by him was not determined with notice to him and in accordance with law. The respondent unilaterally issued Annexure-G order dated 23.08.2002 proposing to deduct an amount of Rs.7,97,472/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Such deduction from the retiral benefits of the petitioner was totally unauthorised and illegal. Hence the petitioner was entitled to reasonable interest on the delayed payment. We do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the claim for interest cannot be Considered in writ jurisdiction. When no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner before his retirement from service and when no determination of any losses caused to the Corporation was made in accordance with law prior to such retirement or thereafter, the conditions contained in Annexure-F order dated 30.07.2002 permitting the petitioner to retire from service cannot clothe the respondent with power or authority to deduct any amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner unless and until there has been a proper and legal determination of the liability of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner died only on 16.12.2005. There was no stay order preventing the respondent from taking action against the petitioner and determining his liability even after his retirement from service. Even after the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2003, the respondent did not consider it necessary to determine his liability in accordance with law. The petitioner died only on 16.12.2005. There was no stay order preventing the respondent from taking action against the petitioner and determining his liability even after his retirement from service. Even after the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2003, the respondent did not consider it necessary to determine his liability in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. 5. The memo filed by the counsel for the respondent before the learned Single Judge does not indicate that there was any settlement between the parties or that the petitioners had waived their claim for interest. The mere fact that the petitioners received the deducted amount of retiral benefits cannot stand in the way of the petitioners pressing for the claim for interest. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment. 6. In the above circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 22.03.2006 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. (ii) The respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the deducted amount of Rs.7,97,472/- for the period from the date of retirement till 14.03.2006, the date on which the deducted amount was paid to the legal representatives of the petitioner by way of cheques. (iii) The above mentioned payment shall be paid by the respondent to the appellants within six weeks from today.