Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Karur. He opted for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 30.04.1987. The Deputy Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Trichy did not forward his application seeking voluntary retirement to the then Director of Oil Seeds, Madras contending that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (CCA) Rules are pending against the petitioner. Finally, the Director of Oil Seeds imposed a punishment of withholding the increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Neither the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Trichy nor the Director of Oil Seeds, Madras passed orders either accepting or rejecting his request for voluntary retirement from service. The then Commissioner of Agriculture initiated action again after merger of office of the Director of Oil Seeds with the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture. On 16.05.1991, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner of Agriculture. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Shortly "the Tribunal"). The said Original Application was allowed on 29.01.1993 and the Tribunal directed the Government that the petitioner should be deemed to have been retired voluntarily with effect from 30.04.1987 and consequently directed the Government to settle all the terminal benefits on the basis that the petitioner has voluntarily retired from service on 30.04.1987 and to treat the period of service after 30.04.1987 till 12.06.1987 as re-employment. The Tribunal also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the retirement benefits. 3. The Government also have accepted the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 and passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.652, Agriculture (AAI) Department, dated 18.11.1994. 4. Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.652, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Madras – 5, issued orders in his proceedings dated 14.12.1994 for the disbursement of pensionary benefits with all attendant benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. Even though the Commissioner of Agriculture issued orders for disbursement of arrears on pensionary benefits with all attendant benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in 1994, the pension arrears were disbursed by the Sub Treasury Officer, Udumalpet on 19.04.1996 and the DCRG arrears were paid by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trichy on 11.10.1996. 5. Even though the Commissioner of Agriculture issued orders for disbursement of arrears on pensionary benefits with all attendant benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in 1994, the pension arrears were disbursed by the Sub Treasury Officer, Udumalpet on 19.04.1996 and the DCRG arrears were paid by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trichy on 11.10.1996. But the arrears of interest were not fully paid up to 05.05.1999, despite several representations and legal notices were issued. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.27,260/- was paid towards interest for the gratuity amount alone by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Karur by his proceedings dated 18.02.1999, although the total amount of arrears of interest claimed was Rs.1,38,328/-. 6. Since the first respondent failed to comply with the order dated 29.01.1993 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 and G.O.Ms.No.652, Agriculture (AAI) Department, dated 18.11.1994, the petitioner requested the first respondent to comply with those orders and to pay him interest on terminal benefits also and not to confine interest to DCRG alone. 7. While so, the first respondent issued a letter dated 06.10.1999 stating that there is no provision in the Pension Rules to give interest for the delayed payment of arrears of pensionary benefits. 8. Hence, the petitioner filed another Original Application in O.A.No.3845 of 2000 before the Tribunal to quash the said order dated 06.10.1999 and for a consequential direction to sanction and disburse the arrears of interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits. 9. The respondents filed reply affidavit stating that the Pension Rules do not provide for payment of interest for the delayed settlement of pension and even if there is a delay, interest could be payable only on the payment of DCRG. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to interest for payment of pensionary benefits. 10. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.44808 of 2006. 11. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 on 29.01.1993 with the following direction: "........... In the above circumstances, the application is allowed. 10. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.44808 of 2006. 11. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 on 29.01.1993 with the following direction: "........... In the above circumstances, the application is allowed. We direct that the applicant will be deemed to have retired voluntarily with effect from 30.04.1987 and not from 12.06.1987, with all attendant benefits and consequentially we direct the respondent to settle all the retirement benefits on the basis that the applicant has voluntarily retired on 30.04.1987, treating the period in service after 30.04.1987 till 12.06.1987 as re-employment. The applicant is entitled to interest at 12% p.a. on the retirement benefits due after three months from the date of voluntary retirement namely, 30.04.1987. No costs." 13. The said order of the Tribunal was accepted by the Government and in turn, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.652, Agriculture (AAI) Department, dated 18.11.1994. Paras 4 and 5 of the said G.O., are extracted hereunder: "4. The Government in the light of the orders of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal have examined the matter and decided to accept it. They are accordingly pass the following orders:- 1. Thiru M.Sivasubramanian, Assistant Director of Agriculture is deemed to have retired voluntarily from service with effect from 30.4.87 with all attendant benefits. 2. The period of service from 1.5.87 to 12.6.87 be treated as re-employment. 3. All retirement benefits on the basis that the above officer has retired on 30.4.87 be settled. 4. The above officer is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the retirement benefits due to him after three months from the date of voluntary retirement viz. 30.4.87. 5. The Commissioner of Agriculture is requested to take necessary action with reference to the above orders. " 14. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Madras passed the order dated 14.12.1994. Paras 2 and 3 of the same are extracted hereunder: "2) But now, Government in the reference (2) cited have ordered as follows: i) Thiru M.Sivasubramanian, Assistant Director of Agriculture is deemed to have retired voluntarily from service with effect from 30.4.87 with all attendant benefits. ii) The period of service from 1.5.87 to 12.6.87 be treated as re-employment. Paras 2 and 3 of the same are extracted hereunder: "2) But now, Government in the reference (2) cited have ordered as follows: i) Thiru M.Sivasubramanian, Assistant Director of Agriculture is deemed to have retired voluntarily from service with effect from 30.4.87 with all attendant benefits. ii) The period of service from 1.5.87 to 12.6.87 be treated as re-employment. iii) All retirement benefits on the basis that the above officer has retired on 30.4.87 be settled. iv) The above officer is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the retirement benefits due to him after three months from the date of voluntary retirement viz. 30.4.87. 3) Therefore, in view of the Government orders that Thiru M.Sivasubramanian, Assistant Director of Agriculture is deemed to have retired voluntarily from service with effect from 30.4.87, the charges framed against him in the reference first cited, are hereby cancelled." 15. While so, the impugned order dated 06.10.1999 was passed by the first respondent declining interest on arrears of payment of pension as the Pension Rules do not provide for it. The relevant passage from the said order is extracted hereunder: " TAMIL" 16. In my considered view, the impugned order is, on the face of it illegal and is opposed to the order dated 29.01.1993 passed in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal categorically directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on all retirement benefits and the Government has accepted the same and issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.652 referred to above. The Government has also in categorical terms directed the first respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the retirement benefits. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent stating that the Pension Rules do not provide for interest for belated payment of pensionary benefits, is not sustainable. 17. Further, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment 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 . The 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.DUA VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 . M.DEIVASIGAMANI reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 . The 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.DUA VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 . Para 7 of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is 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." 18. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the belated payment of all retirement benefits. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to pay interest on all retirement benefits, as ordered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2861 of 1991 dated 29.01.1993, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.