Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.954 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The husband of the petitioner by name K.Muthusamy was employed as a regular Mazdoor from 011. 1973. He died on 23.02.1994, while he was in service at the Primary Health Centre, Nerkuppai, Devakottai Health Unit District. The petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, was not paid family pension and other terminal benefits for a long time. She was paid the provisional family pension by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Sivaganga, in his proceedings R.No.5821/A3/99 dated 211. 2000. That is, after six years and nine months of the death, the petitioner was paid the provisional pension. Thereafter, the Accountant General, Chennai, in his proceedings dated 21.05.2001, sanctioned the full family pension and also DCRG of Rs.20,808/-. The fixation and increment arrears for the period from October 1978 to 111. 1993 was also sanctioned at Rs.11,678/-. These amounts were disbursed to the petitioner, after the aforesaid order of the Accountant General, dated 21.05.2001. The first respondent has also issued G.O.(D)No.189, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 03.03.2004, sanctioning a sum of Rs.23,896/-towards interest for the belated payment of DCRG of Rs.20,808/-. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.954 of 2002 (W.P.No.9264 of 2007) praying for (i) arrears of pay due to the grant of revision and annual increments from 011. 1973 to 23.03.1994 with interest at 12% per annum; (ii) interest at 12% per annum for the belated payment of Rs.1,64,882/- paid towards the family pension and DCRG. 4. Heard Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The respondents filed reply affidavit. It is made clear in the reply affidavit that there was a delay in settlement of terminal benefits due to the fact that the Service Register of the deceased Government employee was not found. 4. Heard Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The respondents filed reply affidavit. It is made clear in the reply affidavit that there was a delay in settlement of terminal benefits due to the fact that the Service Register of the deceased Government employee was not found. It is stated in the reply affidavit that a duplicate Service Register was opened in the Office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Sivaganga and as the particulars recorded in the duplicate Service Register were not sufficient for sending necessary proposals for family pension to the Accountant General, Chennai, the same was sent to various Districts such as Erode, Coimbatore and Dharmapuri, where the deceased Government employee worked, to record the entries regarding his service which are necessary for the purpose of pension. The delay is thus explained by the respondents. A letter in R.No.32920/VC1/2002/C3, dated 01.09.2009 issued by the third respondent to the learned Additional Government Pleader is also placed on record. In the said letter, it is stated as follows: "Further I have to state that at the time of the death of the petitioners husband, his service Register was not found and therefore a duplicate Service Register was opened in the Officer of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Sivaganga. As the particulars recorded in the duplicate Service Register are not sufficient for sending necessary Family Pension proposals to the Accountant General, Chennai, the delay has occurred. However, now all the terminal benefits have been settled to the applicant." Therefore, the respondents have admitted that there is a long delay in settling the terminal benefits. 6. As per the reply affidavit and also the G.O.(D)No.189, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 03.03.2004 enclosed along with reply affidavit, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Health Services issued his proceedings dated 211. 2000, providing for provisional family pension of Rs.1,275/-per month from 011. 1973. An amount of Rs.1,32,986/- towards provisional family pension from 24.02.1994 to 30.11.2000 was paid to the petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Further, the provisional family pension of Rs.5,544/-for the period from 012. 2000 to 28.02.2001 and an equal sum of Rs.5,544/-for the period March to May 2001 was paid. 1973. An amount of Rs.1,32,986/- towards provisional family pension from 24.02.1994 to 30.11.2000 was paid to the petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Further, the provisional family pension of Rs.5,544/-for the period from 012. 2000 to 28.02.2001 and an equal sum of Rs.5,544/-for the period March to May 2001 was paid. Thus, the petitioner was paid Rs.1,44,074/-towards provisional family pension after about seven years of the death of the deceased Government employee. Further, pursuant to an order dated 21.05.2001 of the Accountant General, full family pension was paid, besides the payment of Rs.20,808/- towards DCRG and Rs.11,678/-towards fixation and increment arrears for the period from October 1978 to 111. 1993. 7. The second prayer in the writ petition is for interest for the amount of Rs.1,64,882/-paid towards the family pension and DCRG. Rs.20,808/-represents DCRG. The same was paid pursuant to the sanction order dated 21.05.2001 of the Accountant General. Since there was a delay, the first respondent issued G.O.(D)No.189, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 03.03.2004, sanctioning a sum of Rs.23,896/- towards interest for the belated payment of DCRG amount of Rs.20,808/-to the petitioner. The said interest was paid as the same is provided under the Rules. As far as the payment of interest to DCRG is concerned, the same is met by the respondents. Therefore, the issue is whether the respondents have to pay interest for the belated payment of Rs.1,44,074/- towards the family pension or not. 8. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner is not entitled to interest for family pension as the Rules do not provide for payment of interest. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VS. M.DEIVASIGAMANI reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 , in support of his submission that though the Rules do not provide payment of interest, if there is a belated payment of terminal benefits, including pension, the Government is bound to pay interest for the belated payment. The said Division Bench judgment granted interest for the belated payment at the rate of 10%, following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in S.K.DUE VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 . The said Division Bench judgment granted interest for the belated payment at the rate of 10%, following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in S.K.DUE VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 . Para 7 of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is usefully extracted here-under: "In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines and he can make his claim for interest, under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution." 9. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Divsion Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the belated payment of pension. 10. The first prayer in the writ petition is for the payment of revision in pay and the arrears in salary payable to the deceased Government employee during his service period with interest. Rs.11,678/- was paid, as seen from the G.O.(D)No.189, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 03.03.2004 of the first respondent, towards fixation and increment arrears for the period from October 1978 to 111. 1993, after May 2001. Here also, the concerned employee was not given the proper fixation and increments whenever it fell due for the non-availability of Service Register. In my considered view, since the fixation and increments were paid after 20 years, for no fault of the employee concerned, the respondents are bound to pay interest for such belated payment also, in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. Further, the petitioner is entitled to interest as per Section 3(1) read with 2(c) of the Interest Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 11. Further, the petitioner is entitled to interest as per Section 3(1) read with 2(c) of the Interest Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Section 2(c) of the Act defines "debt", which is as follows:- "2(c) "debt" means any liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind, but does not include a judgment debt;" Section 3(1) is also extracted here-under: "3-(1) In any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period, that is to say,- (a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings; (b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, then, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed, to the date of institution of the proceedings: Provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed under this section for the period after such repayment". 12. As per Section 2(c), any liability for an ascertained sum of money, is debt under the Act. Here, the ascertained liability is Rs.11,678/-towards the arrears on fixation and increments from 1978 to 1993. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest at least at the current rate of interest. I am inclined to fix the rate of interest at 10% for the amount of Rs.11,678/-. However, the interest is ordered from the date of death, 23.02.1994 only. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,678/-at 10%, till it was paid at least from 23.02.1994. 13. I am inclined to fix the rate of interest at 10% for the amount of Rs.11,678/-. However, the interest is ordered from the date of death, 23.02.1994 only. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,678/-at 10%, till it was paid at least from 23.02.1994. 13. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondents to pay interest at 10% for the belated payment of family pension and arrears of salary pursuant to fixation of pay and increment for the period 1978 to 1993 from the date of death till the payment was made, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.