JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner was an Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Under the General Insurance Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (for short ‘the Scheme of 2004’), which was applicable in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement. The said application of the petitioner was accepted by the Company on 27.2.2004, according to which, certain payments were to be made to the petitioner in lieu on his seeking voluntary retirement. It is now not disputed by the parties that all the payments under the scheme, except the ex-gratia payment amounting to Rs. 11 lacs and odd, has been made to the petitioner. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-Insurance Company to release the ex-gratia amount payable to the petitioner under the Scheme of 2004 and other benefits guaranteed under the said Scheme alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. 2. We have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and have perused the record. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being taken up for final disposal. 3. The respondent-Insurance Company does not dispute its liability to make payment of ex-gratia amount payable under the Scheme of 2004. However, the only defence which has been taken in the counter-affidavit for not making such payment is that while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Aligarh, in the year 1998 he had paid certain claim amount to the claimant/policy holder M/s. Rajeev Oil Company whereas the same ought to have been paid to the U.P. Financial Corporation, Aligarh. It is contended that in this regard the U.P. Financial Corporation has filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 221 of 2001, which is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Aligarh. The stand of the Insurance Company is that till the suit is decided or until the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the said ex-gratia amount, the same cannot be disbursed to the petitioner. 4. The stand of the Insurance Company is that till the suit is decided or until the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the said ex-gratia amount, the same cannot be disbursed to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the said suit had been filed by the U.P. Financial Corporation in the year 2001, which is three years prior to the acceptance of the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and yet that there was no such condition imposed while accepting his application. It is further contended that the payment to the claimant/policy holder was made after due approval of the higher authorities of the respondent-Insurance Company and as such, the petitioner could not be held liable for the same and if the suit of the U.P. Financial Corporation is allowed, it would be against the Insurance Company and not against the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, under the Scheme of 2004, there was no such condition with regard to withholding the payments of any dues on any such ground of pendency of a suit filed by the third party against the Insurance Company. The voluntary retirement was sought by the petitioner under certain terms laid down in the Scheme of 2004, which had been accepted by the respondent-Insurance Company on 27.2.2004, which was much after the filing of the suit against the Insurance Company by the U.P. Financial Corporation, Aligarh. Had the petitioner known of withholding of ex-gratia payment because of pendency of such suit, then he may not have accepted the voluntary retirement under the Scheme. 6. In our view, once the Insurance Company has acted upon the application of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004 and made substantial payment in terms of the said scheme, the respondent-Insurance Company cannot later on turn around and be permitted to impose any fresh condition after the acceptance of the offer of the petitioner. As such, the stoppage of payment of the ex-gratia amount payable under the Scheme of 2004, to which the petitioner had been found entitled at the time of acceptance of application, cannot now be stopped unilaterally at a later stage especially after the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement by the Insurance Company on 27.2.2004 and the same having been also acted upon by the parties. 7. 7. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondent-Oriental Insurance Company is directed to release the payment of ex-gratia amount, to which the petitioner is found entitled under the provisions of General Insurance Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, which has been accepted by the Company vide order dated 27.2.2004. It is made clear that in the facts and circumstances, and as is also agreed by the petitioner, in case if the said ex-gratia amount payable to the petitioner is paid to him within three months from today, the petitioner shall not claim any interest. However, in case the same is paid after three months, the petitioner shall be entitled to such interest as is payable under law. It is, however, made clear that in case if the suit filed by the U.P. Financial Corporation is decreed against the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall thereafter be at liberty to take such appropriate legal proceedings against the erring officials found liable for payment of amount to the claimant/policy holder and not to the U.P. Financial Corporation. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as cost. ————