Judgment :- In view of the fact that the facts involved in both the writ petitions are award and the same and also in view of the respondents are same. They have been taken up together for disposal. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were working as Manager with the respondent. While they were working as a Regional Manager in Dindigul Region, they have made payment for transport charges to the contractors. The petitioner in W.P.No.2080 of 2009 retired on 310. 2005 and the petitioner in W.P.No.2081 is retired on 30.06.03 respectively. 2. However, based upon the audit objection, an order was passed by the respondents to withheld the amount which is differential amount between the transport charges paid by the petitioners to the contractors of the Dindigul Region while they were working as Regional Manager and the actual amount to be paid to those contractors. It is not in dispute that the actual amount to be paid to the contractors has not been finalised issue and the said issue is pending in construction with the Government. 3. Therefore, the petitioners has filed the present writ petitions seeking to set-aside the order passed by the respondents withhelding the said payment and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment. 4. The specific case of the petitioners is that they are not at fault, since as per the directions of the respondent, the said payment has been made and in any case, the issue is in pending consideration with the Government and therefore it cannot be construed that the petitioner were at fault in making payment which is said to be excess as per the objection made in the audit. It is not disputed that the recovery sought to be made is in the course of discharge of the duty while the petitioners were working as Regional Manager at Dindigul Region. It is also not in dispute that the actual amount due to the contractors has not been finalised till now. The matter is a pending consideration with the Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be found fault with that, making the payment due to the contractors. 5. In an identical issue, another Regional Manager by name Mr. It is also not in dispute that the actual amount due to the contractors has not been finalised till now. The matter is a pending consideration with the Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be found fault with that, making the payment due to the contractors. 5. In an identical issue, another Regional Manager by name Mr. K. Nagalingam who work in the Dindigul Region filed the writ petition No.10804 of 2005 challenging the action of the respondents in with helding the payment due to him on the ground of alleged excess payment made to the contractors as transport charges. The Honourable High Court intend on 20.02.2008, allowed the writ petition as paid for. It is not a dispute with the said judgment of learned single judge has become final. The same is also been implemented by the respondents. The relevant portion of the same is extracted here. "Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 25.04.2003. As admitted in the counter, as on the date of retirement of the petitioner, as per Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Regulation, 1989, there was no provision for initiating any disciplinary proceeding. Such a provision was introduced in the regulation only with effect from 06.01.2006. In view of the same, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Now, after 2006, whether any disciplinary proceeding could be initiated or not is a question for discussion, which I do not want to enter into. The fact remains that the petitioner has been suffering for about five years without getting any terminal benefits payable to him. The absence of provision, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as on the date of retirement, cannot be a ground at all to deny him terminal benefits expecting a suitable amendment to be brought in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Regulation, 1989. Therefore, non-payment of terminal benefits for five years to the petitioner, in my considered opinion, is only unreasonable, but also arbitrary." 6. Hence, considering the above said factual and legal position this court is of the opinion that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No costs.