JUDGMENT :- 1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 29.01.2004 in Pro.Na.Ka.No.103689/03/Pension-2 passed by the second respondent and letter No.VA6/91583/03 dated 13.2.2004 sent by the first respondent and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to pay interest to the petitioner and for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a Government servant and retired from service on 31.07.1992 as Block Development Officer, Sattankulam, Tuticorin District on attaining the age of Superannuation. As per the proceeding of the second respondent, in Roc.No.80676/92-10 dated 31.07.1992. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was permitted to retire from service however, in the order it was stated that subject to serious irregularities involving monetary loss are if any. According to the respondents as pointed out in the Audit Clearance Certificate, an amount equal to the monetary losses was withheld from D.C.R.G. of the individual. As the retiral benefits were not given to the petitioner, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai in O.A.No.5811 of 1992 and 1812 of 1996. As per the order dated 01.02.2001, the Administrative Tribunal rejected the O.A.No.5811 of 1992 on the ground that there was no audit irregularities in the charges framed against the petitioner herein on 31.07.1992. O.A.No.1812 of 1996 was dismissed as infructuous since disciplinary proceedings had already been finalised and direction was given, for cut off at Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months had already been accepted by the petitioner. The respondents were also directed by the Administrative Tribunal, to disburse the DCRG and other pensionary benefits in full, after deducting the said amount from the pension for six months as proposed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the direction given by the Administrative Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents within the time limit. 3. It is not in dispute that subsequently the respondents paid the amount, a sum of Rs.42,884/- towards DCRG on 24.09.2001. However, the arrears of pension from the year 1992 to 2010 was calculated at Rs.1,75,540/-was paid only on 07.04.2002. However, the direction given by the Administrative Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents within the time limit. 3. It is not in dispute that subsequently the respondents paid the amount, a sum of Rs.42,884/- towards DCRG on 24.09.2001. However, the arrears of pension from the year 1992 to 2010 was calculated at Rs.1,75,540/-was paid only on 07.04.2002. After the death of the retired employee, his legal representatives are implicated as petitioners 2 to 5. Now the petitioners have claimed interest for the delayed payment of DCRG and arrears of pension. 4. Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have caused delay for about nine years in disbursing the aforesaid amount under the heads of DCRG and arrears of pension. Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest since there was enquiry proceedings pending against him. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as per the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, cut off pension at Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months was ordered, as the petitioner had already consented for the same. At the rate of Rs.50/-per month, the amount that had to be recovered from DCRG and pension was only Rs.300/-. However, the huge amount of retiral benefits of DCRG and pension payable to the retired Government servant was not paid for about nine years and subsequently he died. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that DCRG amount was computed at Rs.42,884/-and the pension was computed at Rs.1,75,530/- and a total amount comes to Rs.2,18,414/-. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since there is unreasonable delay in disbursing the retiral benefits to the petitioner, as per law the respondents they are bound to pay interest. In support of his contention learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions: (1) Vijay L.Mehrotra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2001(9) SCC 687 and (2) Judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4162 & 4163 of 1999 5. The Honourable Apex Court has laid down the ratio in the decision reported in 2001 (9) SCC 684 that the appellant retired Government servant therein was entitled to interest, as there had been delayed payment on retiral benefits. The Honourable Apex Court has laid down the ratio in the decision reported in 2001 (9) SCC 684 that the appellant retired Government servant therein was entitled to interest, as there had been delayed payment on retiral benefits. The aforesaid judgment reads as follows: "In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within tweleve weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18% with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31.8.1997 till the date of payments." 6. The Division Bench of this Court by its Common order dated 18.04.2002 made in W.P.No.4162 and 4163 of 1999 has held as follows: "Though the petitioner had attained Superannuation in the year 1990, he is yet to get the pensionary benefits. Nothing would have prevented the Government from effecting recovery and pay the pensionary benefits. Therefore, there is a delay on the part of the Government in giving effect to the orders of punishment. Therefore, we confirm the orders passed by the Government on 25.11.1993 in G.O.(D)No.691, Health and Family Welfare Department imposing a cut of Rs.50/-for a period of one year in so far as W.P.No.4163 of 1999 is concerned and we direct the respondents to recover the amounts from the pension payable to the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits including pension and whatever arrears available forthwith with interest at 9% from 31.3.1990, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents ought to have paid provisional pension. For the failure on the part of the Government to pay provisional pension or full pension after the orders have been passed, after giving effect to the recovery, the interest has been awarded. 7. In the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, considering the prevailing rate of interest it has been decided that the petitioner therein was entitled to 9% interest for the delayed payment. 7. In the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, considering the prevailing rate of interest it has been decided that the petitioner therein was entitled to 9% interest for the delayed payment. It is not in dispute that while permitting the petitioner to retire from service on 31.07.1992 the second respondent herein passed a conditional order that if there was any serious irregularities involving monetary losses pointed out in the Audit Clearance Certificate, the amount involved could be withheld from the retiral benefits of the individual. However, the order does not state any specific charge or any amount of loss caused by the petitioner. Had there been any departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner, the second respondent could have specifically stated the details and further the order was passed on 31.07.1992, on the last date of retirement of the petitioner. Without specifying any irregularities or monetary loss in a casual manner the order has been passed thereof. There is any serious irregularities or loss to the Government to withhold the amount payable towards the retiral benefit. The authorities could have verified any such irregularities, after following the procedure known to law, so as to withhold the retiral benefits payable to the petitioners. 8. Time and again, the Honourable Apex Court and High Courts including this Court are directing the authorities to disburse the retiral benefits at an early date without causing unreasonable delay. The claim of a retired person cannot be kept pending for number of years unreasonably after attaining Superannuation. The petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing original petitions and unfortunately before getting his entire retiral benefits he died. Now his legal representatives are claiming the relief nearly nine years after the Superannuation of the petitioner. It is seen even in the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 01.02.2001, pension and cut off pension at Rs.50/-per month for six months was ordered by the authorities. It shows that the allegation and the charges levelled against the petitioner (Government Servant) was not specified in the order, while permitting him to retire from service and further, the total amount of Rs.300/- ordered to be recovered shows that the charges are not severe in nature. Based on the charges not severe in nature, the retiral benefits could not have been kept pending by the authorities without any disbursement for number of years. 9. Based on the charges not severe in nature, the retiral benefits could not have been kept pending by the authorities without any disbursement for number of years. 9. The Honourable Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has categorically held that a retired employee is entitled to get interest at 18% per annum and the respondent therein was also directed to disburse the same, within a period of twelve weeks. However, considering the bank rate of interest the Division Bench of this Court has subsequently fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there were seven charges originally levelled against the petitioner, however, only one charge was held to be proved. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Government Order dated 13.07.2001, subsequently passed after the order of the Administrative Tribunal, wherein, it is stated that as per the third charge, the petitioner had purchased name boards with instillation charges at Rs.8,975/- without getting approval from the concerned engineer by way of getting his signature. In explanation the petitioner (Government servant) had stated that approval from the engineer is needed only if the work done is more than a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Since the amount involved in the work was only Rs.8,975/-, the same was not needed to get the prior approval of the engineer. Anyhow, it was held that the charge was proved and accordingly penalty was imposed directing to make a cut in the pension payable to the petitioner at Rs.50/- per month for six months accordingly, a total sum of Rs.300/-was ordered to be deducted. However, unreasonably the entire DCRG of pension payable to the petitioner was withheld for so many years as stated above, which is unjustifiable. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs.42,884/- was due and payable towards DCRG and a sum of Rs.1,75,530/-payable towards pension and totally which comes to Rs.2,18,414/-. Merely on the ground of recovery at Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months a total sum of Rs.300/-the retiral benefit cannot be withheld. In a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 18.06.2007 made in W.P.No.4162 and 4103 of 1999 has held as follows: Para 3 "Though the petitioner had attained Superannuation in the year 1990, he is yet to get the pensionary benefits. In a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 18.06.2007 made in W.P.No.4162 and 4103 of 1999 has held as follows: Para 3 "Though the petitioner had attained Superannuation in the year 1990, he is yet to get the pensionary benefits. Nothing would have prevented the Government from effecting recovery and pay the pensionary benefits. Therefore, there is a delay on the part of the Government in giving effect to the orders of punishment. Therefore, we confirm ht orders passed by the Government on 25.11.1993 in G.O.(D)No.691, Health and Family Welfare Department imposing a cut of Rs.50/-for a period of one year in so far as W.P.No.4162 of 1999 is concerned and the order dated 10.07.1975 in G.O.(D) No.934 Health and Family Welfare Department imposing recovery of Rs.2,318/- in so far as W.P.No.4163 of 1999 is concerned and we direct the respondents to recover the amounts from the pension payable to the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits including pension and whatever arrears available forthwith with interest at 9% from 31.03.1990, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents ought to have paid provisional pension. For the failure on the part of the Government to pay provisional pension or full pension after the orders have been passed, after giving effect to the recovery, the interest has been awarded." 12. As per the order passed in the earlier writ petition and G.O.Ms.(D).No.691, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 25.11.1993, the cut off amount Rs.50/-for a period of one year was imposed. As per the order dated 10.07.1975 in W.P.No.4162 of 1999 pursuant to G.O.Ms.(D).No.934, Health and Family Welfare Department, imposed recovery of Rs.2,318/-. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent therein, to pay interest at 9% for the delayed payment made by them. In the instant case, the petitioner herein on attaining Superannuation retired from service on 31.07.1992. However, the amount of Rs.42,884/-payable towards DCRG was not paid immediately but, paid only on 24.09.2009 in view of the recovery of Rs.300/-. Similarly, the arrears of payment of Rs.1,75,530/-was paid only on 09.04.2002. As per the decision referred to, the petitioner being a retired Government servant is entitled to claim interest for the delayed payment. 13. However, the amount of Rs.42,884/-payable towards DCRG was not paid immediately but, paid only on 24.09.2009 in view of the recovery of Rs.300/-. Similarly, the arrears of payment of Rs.1,75,530/-was paid only on 09.04.2002. As per the decision referred to, the petitioner being a retired Government servant is entitled to claim interest for the delayed payment. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal is silent on the interest payable. However, the respondents have not paid the retiral amount payable to the petitioner within the time limit, as per the order passed by the Tribunal. The retired Government servant is entitled to claim interest for any unreasonable delayed payment. In the instant case, merely for an amount of Rs.300/-to be deducted, the respondent cannot retain the total amount of Rs.2,18,414/-for about nine years, for which, there is no justification. On account of the inordinate delay, the retired Government servant could not get the benefit and after his demise, his legal representatives have been impleaded, however, they are entitled to claim all the benefits that are available to the deceased, retired Government servant. 14. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% simple interest per annum based on which the amount was payable after deducting an amount of Rs.300/-payable to the respondents. The respondents are also directed to settle the claim within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.