Judgment 1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the Agricultural Engineering Department on 112. 1964 and was ultimately working under the 4th respondent. The second respondent, while reorganizing the Horticulture Department in the proceedings dated 211. 1995, ordered redeployment of persons found to be surplus and under the said scheme, the post of Typist was wound up and the third respondent by the proceedings dated 211. 1995, by winding up the post of Typist held by the petitioner at Kodaikanal, redeployed him in the place of one Seralathan, who was working as Typist in Dindigul who, in turn, was redeployed to the second respondent. 2. Even though the petitioner joined at Dindigul on 30.11.1995 under protest, the petitioner was transferred from Dindigul to Chennai in the place of said Seralathan, who was redeployed again to Dindigul by the third respondent on 12. 1995. The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer in O.A.No.3435 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which granted stay on 7. 1996. However, the petitioner was not issued with any work order posting him at Dindigul, in spite of the interim order and the 4th respondent returned the representation of the petitioner on 8. 1996. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in C.A.No.417 of 1996 in O.A.No.3435 of 1996, in which the 4th respondent took a stand that the petitioner was posted in Dindigul, which according to the petitioner, is not correct. 3. Before the petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation which was on 310. 1999, the second respondent passed an order on 29. 1999, directing the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner with direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for absence from duty without leave application from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999, etc. While it is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to join during the said period, the third respondent by order dated 30.9.1999, posted the petitioner as Typist in the 4th respondent Office at Kodaikanal. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Dindigul issued a charge memo on 10. 1999 to the effect that (i) the petitioner failed to join duty at Dindigul as per the orders of his superior dated 26. 1996, and (ii) the petitioner absented himself from duty without leave application from 12. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Dindigul issued a charge memo on 10. 1999 to the effect that (i) the petitioner failed to join duty at Dindigul as per the orders of his superior dated 26. 1996, and (ii) the petitioner absented himself from duty without leave application from 12. 1995 and therefore, it is in violation of Rules 18(2) and (3) of the Service Conduct Rules. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner who had to retire on superannuation was placed under suspension not allowing him to retire by the second respondent by order dated 310. 1999. The second respondent in the order dated 20.7.2005, after enquiry into the charges framed under rule 17(b), having found that there is no proof to show that the petitioner has disobeyed the orders of superiors, exonerated the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings and directed for payment of pensionary benefits. In the said order, the petitioner was permitted to retire. In the meantime, the contempt application filed by the petitioner in C.A.No.417 of 1996 was closed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 28. 2005 praying for payment of terminal benefits. 5. The 4th respondent, who has revoked the order of termination passed against the petitioner on 210. 1999, has written to the second respondent recommending for early disbursement of terminal benefits to the petitioner. By order dated 111. 2005, the 4th respondent also allowed the petitioner to retire from service. Since the petitioner was not paid the retirement benefits, the petitioner made representation to the second respondent and the 4th respondent on 112. 2005, requesting for payment of terminal benefits and for regularization of the period from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5328 of 2006 for direction to pay terminal benefits. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 9. 2006 with direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28. 2005 and pass appropriate orders. 6. In the meantime, on 28. 2006, the petitioner was paid only the provident fund amount of Rs.46,741/-. He also made representation on 27. 2006 to the second respondent to regularize his services from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999 and pay the terminal benefits. In spite of the order passed by this Court on 9. 2006 and subsequent representations dated 210. 2006 and 212. 2006, the petitioner was paid only the provident fund amount of Rs.46,741/-. He also made representation on 27. 2006 to the second respondent to regularize his services from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999 and pay the terminal benefits. In spite of the order passed by this Court on 9. 2006 and subsequent representations dated 210. 2006 and 212. 2006, since no orders were passed, the petitioner issued a contempt notice on 20.2.2007 to the second respondent. Thereafter, the 4th respondent by order dated 23.02.2007, regularised the services of the petitioner for the period from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999 as duty period for all purposes. The petitioner was also paid the gratuity amount of Rs.1,35,630/- on 19. 1997. The petitioner has been paid the following retrial benefits: 1) 14. 2007 … Earned leave amount of Rs. 72,585/- 2)14. 2007 … Salary for the period from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999 of Rs.3,42,605/- 3)19. 2007 … Gratuity amount of Rs.1,35,630/- Total Rs.5,50,820/- 7. Since the above said amounts should have been paid to the petitioner on the date of his retirement on superannuation which was on 310. 1999, inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings against him were dropped by the second respondent on 20.7.2005, the petitioner made a representation for payment of interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits of Rs.5,50,820/-. Since no order has been passed in respect of payment of interest, the present writ petition has been filed for direction against the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the belated payment of terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.5,50,820/- from 30.10.1999 to 33. 2007. 8. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents admitted that the following amounts were paid to the petitioner on the dates mentioned against each of the amounts. "1. Provisional pension from Nov.2005 to July,2006 for Rs.46741 has been given on 23.08.2006. 2. Theabsences period from 12. 95 to 30.9.99 had been regularized as duty period and pay and allowances had been drawn and paid him on 14. 2007 for Rs.342605 vide proceeding No.A.1533/98, dated 110. 2005. 3. Encashment of earned leave 225 days,balances in his credit as on 310. 99 for Rs.72585 had been drawn and paid him on 14. 2007. 4. As per the letter No.B.07/3/R.53/RTD/2007-2008/5551, dated 19. 2007 of the Accountant General, Chennai the DCRG amount of Rs.135630/- had been drawn and paid to him on 211. 2005. 3. Encashment of earned leave 225 days,balances in his credit as on 310. 99 for Rs.72585 had been drawn and paid him on 14. 2007. 4. As per the letter No.B.07/3/R.53/RTD/2007-2008/5551, dated 19. 2007 of the Accountant General, Chennai the DCRG amount of Rs.135630/- had been drawn and paid to him on 211. 2007 by the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kodaikkanal." That apart, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has not chosen to join in the office of the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Dindigul and that there was no delay. 9. On the analysis of the factual matrix which are not in dispute, it is clear that the second respondent having dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the order dated 20.7.2005 relating to the allegation of failure to join duty and his absence without taking leave, it is certainly not open to the respondents to again find fault with the petitioner that he has not chosen to join duty or obeyed the orders. In the order of the second respondent dated 20.7.2005, the second respondent considered the enquiry officer’s report in respect of both the charges and set aside the same on the basis of the finding that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. The operative portion of the order passed by the second respondent is as follows: 10. Even after the said order was passed by the second respondent on 20.7.2005, exonerating the petitioner from all charges, the respondents have chosen to make payment of monetary benefits to the petitioner only in April, 2007 and there is a delay of 2 years even after the petitioner having been exonerated from the charges. The claim of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the second respondent passed final orders on 20.7.2005 on merits, exonerating the petitioner from the charges, it means that the charges framed against the petitioner on 10. 1999 stood set aside and the petitioner should have been paid the monetary benefits allowing him to retire on attaining superannuation on 310. 1999 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of superannuation being the date of eligibility, viz., 310. 1999 till the date on which the payments were made, that is, April, 2007. 11. 1999 stood set aside and the petitioner should have been paid the monetary benefits allowing him to retire on attaining superannuation on 310. 1999 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of superannuation being the date of eligibility, viz., 310. 1999 till the date on which the payments were made, that is, April, 2007. 11. The date of eligibility of a Government servant for payment of pension and retirement benefits is the date of his attaining superannuation. It is no doubt true that on the date of attaining superannuation, the charges framed against the petitioner on 10. 1999 under rule 17(b) were pending and therefore, the petitioner who was placed under suspension was not allowed to retire on 310. 1999. From the date of framing of charges, the respondents have taken six long years for passing the final orders and in the absence of any reasons assigned by the respondents that the delay was due to the conduct of the petitioner, certainly such long delay was detrimental to the interest of the petitioner, since his right of pension which is otherwise the right to life of a Government servant after the date of retirement has been withheld without any acceptable reason. 12. The pension or gratuity being no longer a bounty, has to be disbursed on the date of retirement of a Government servant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India [ (1987) 4 SCC 328 ] crystallized the payment of interest for the delayed payment as a normal practice in the following words: "24. Normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case." But the question to be decided in this case is, as to whether the respondents are liable to pay interest from 310. 1999 till the date of payment viz., April, 2007 or from the date of dropping of disciplinary proceedings which was on 20.7.2005 till the date of payment, that is, April, 2007. 13. The historical background of the case which has been narrated earlier shows that there has been harassment caused to the petitioner in the matter of transfer, retransfer, etc. 1999 till the date of payment viz., April, 2007 or from the date of dropping of disciplinary proceedings which was on 20.7.2005 till the date of payment, that is, April, 2007. 13. The historical background of the case which has been narrated earlier shows that there has been harassment caused to the petitioner in the matter of transfer, retransfer, etc. and it can never be stated, as correctly found by the second respondent in the disciplinary proceedings, that the petitioner was responsible for non-joining of duty. Looking the matter in the above said background, one has to consider about the substantial justice to be rendered, since admittedly the petitioner was denied his right of pensionary benefits at the appropriate time. 14. It is seen in the order of the second respondent dated 20.7.2005, in which the petitioner was exonerated from the charges that the petitioner submitted his explanation for the charges only on 111. 2002 and therefore, there was a delay of 3 years on the part of the petitioner to submit his explanation for the charges which, in my considered view, has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the liability on the part of the respondents to pay interest for the belated payment. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should be paid interest by the respondents for the belated payment of terminal benefits from January, 2003 till the date of payment, as stated above. 15. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed partly with direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the belated disbursement of terminal benefits of Rs.5,50,820/- from 1. 2003 till 310. 2007, which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, along with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner.