Judgment :- The petitioner, after his retirement has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 14.01.1999 of the third respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest for the belated disbursement of pensionary benefits. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 40003 of 2006. 2. The petitioner contended that he retired from service on 30.11.1997 as Headmaster and he was re-employed from 01.12.1997 to 31.05.1998. Prior to his retirement, he submitted his pension papers on 13.05.1997. For rectification of certain defects, the pension papers were returned to him on 13.06.1997 and it was re-submitted by him on 10.09.1997. Even after lapse of seven months of his retirement, the pension has not been sanctioned to him. The petitioner was also not paid the re-employment pay from 01.12.1997 to 31.05.1999. Further, the petitioners Special Provident Fund ought to have been encashed on 01.12.1997, but it was sanctioned only on 20.04.1998 i.e., after five months of his retirement. In other words, the petitioners pensionary benefits were paid to him belatedly. According to the petitioner, the commutation was paid on 03.08.1998 instead of 01.12.1997; pension for eight months was paid on 03.08.1998 instead of 31.12.1997 onwards. Gratuity was paid on 27.08.1998 instead of 01.12.1997; the re-employment pay ought to have been paid to him on 30.12.1997, but it was paid only on 23.09.1998. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay in disbursement of retirement benefits when he had put in his pension papers as early as on 13.05.1997. Under normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have disbursed the retirement benefits within 90 days, but in the case of the petitoner there was an enormous delay in disbursing the terminal benefits. This delay is not on the part of the petitioner, hence, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, he claimed interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.01.1999. In the impugned order, in para-3, it was categorically admitted that there was a delay on the part of the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil. Therefore, under law, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest for the delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the retirement benefits especially when there is an admission in the impugned order itself. 3. Therefore, under law, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest for the delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the retirement benefits especially when there is an admission in the impugned order itself. 3. The learned Government Advocate, relying on the reply affidavit of the third respondent, submitted that the pension proposals of the petitioner could not be submitted at the earliest point of time due to want of service register and the pension proposals papers were submitted to the Accountant General office at Chennai on 17.03.1998. Therefore, she would contend that the delay has occurred during the normal circumstances and the delay is not wilful or wanton. She would also submit that the petitioner should have been more alert in re-presenting the pension papers when it was returned for rectification of certain defects. Therefore the delay is on the part of the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for interest as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.11.1997. He had sent the papers regarding his pension proposals as early as on 30.05.1997 to the respondents. Some defects have been pointed out and the petitioner, rectifying the defects, re-submitted the papers on 16.09.1997 well before his retirement, but unfortunately, even as per the admission in the counter, the service register and other papers were sent to the office of the Accountant General, Chennai only on 17.03.1998 i.e., nearly after four months after the retirement of the petitioner. One of the reasons attributed by the respondents for the delay is that the petitioner himself delayed in re-presenting the papers in time. Even in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that the delay is on the part of the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil. Except this, no other reason was stated and that the petitioner did not send the proposals in time. In the impugned order, it is also stated that the submission of pensionary proposals was delayed by the petitioner in various stages. The fact remains that two months prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner had duly forwarded his pension proposals after rectification to the respondents. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, but unfortunately, the petitioner, a retired employee was made to wait for a longer period. 5. The fact remains that two months prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner had duly forwarded his pension proposals after rectification to the respondents. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, but unfortunately, the petitioner, a retired employee was made to wait for a longer period. 5. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and another vs. M. Deivasigamani (2009 3 MLJ (Volume 242) Madras Page No.1 has categorically stated that an employee is entitled to claim interest for belated payment of pension and other terminal benefits even in the absence of Statutory Rule, Administrative Instruction or Guideline, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In Para No.6, it was held thus:- 6. The contention of the appellant that as per the Government norms, interest can be paid only on Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, in case of delay and the same cannot be awarded to any other retiral benefits, is not tenable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.K. Due vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 . In the reported case, the appellant therein was served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in June 1998, few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.06.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, gratuity, etc., They wee withheld till the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the absence of any statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 14 of the judgment, held as follows:- 14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by theappellant 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. 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 the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appelant, 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 respondents. 7. 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. 6. Similarly, in the decision reported in (D.P. Selvaraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Finance (T &A1) Department, Chennai) 2009 5 MLJ 1361 , a learned single Judge of this Court held that when there is delay in disbursement of the retirement benefits, the Government servant is entitled to receive interest on the belated payment of retiral benefits, particularly when the delay is not on the part of the employee. In Para No.8, it was held as follows:- "8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court finds that nothing has been shown by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to deny the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the delay in payment of the arrears of the retiral benefits is due to the petitioner. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the delay in payment of the arrears of the retiral benefits is due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of the retiral benefits, due to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the amounts fell due till the date of its actual payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 7. The above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. As stated above, the delay is only on the part of the respondents and not on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of the retiral benefits, due to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when the amounts fell due till the date of its actual payment. Such payment shall be made by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.