Judgment :- U.V. Bakre, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner has prayed as follows: (i). That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner interests on the arrears of pension benefit right from the date of their becoming due as worked out in Exhibit 'A' hereto; (ii). A writ of mandamus, or direction or order in the nature or mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay further interests from 17/05/2004 till the date of actual payment; (iii). A writ of mandamus, or order, direction in the nature of mandamus to make the said payment within a stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and convenient. (iv). Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and necessary. (v). Costs of this Petition.” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: She was an Ex- Section Officer from the establishment of High Court of Bombay at Goa, who retired from service on superannuation as Section Officer on 28/02/1997 A.O.H. Prior to her retirement and with due antecedence as provided under the relevant Pension Rules, the petitioner had submitted her pension papers through the office of respondent no. 2 to the Accountant General Maharashtra, and her pension benefits came to be sanctioned by the office of the Accountant General under special Seal Authority no. PA/1/20/DCRG/MD/Mah/53072/PRI/96-97/934/3, dated 07/01/1997, thus well ahead of her retirement date. The pension benefits sanctioned to the petitioner were worked out on the basis of the pay, which the petitioner was then drawing in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 as under:- Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Commutation of Pension Pension Relief 1 + Relief 2 Rs. 91,827 Rs. 57,865 Rs. 1383 + 1130 +565 3. The said pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was revised as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, to Rs. 6500-10,500, to take effect retrospectively as from 01/01/1996. Consequently, the pay of the petitioner came to be revised and fixed on the pay scale of Rs. 6500 – 10,500 as per the statement of fixation of pay under Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 dated 24/06/1999(hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”.). Consequent upon the pay fixation of the petitioner in the said revised new pay scale of Rs. 6500 – 10,500 as per the statement of fixation of pay under Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 dated 24/06/1999(hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”.). Consequent upon the pay fixation of the petitioner in the said revised new pay scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 w.e.f. 01/01/1996, the arrears arising from the pay so fixed were paid to the petitioner as she had since retired from service, while like arrears from the petitioner's counter-parts, who were in effective service, were kept in their respective G.P.F., earmarked separately earning interest at the rate of 8-12% from 01/10/1998 with a rider that they could not be encashed or withdrawn until a specified date that is up to 31/12/2001. Although the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale by the former office of the petitioner as per the statement dated 24/06/1999, the petitioner's pension benefits were not at all revised, as a result of which the petitioner continued to draw her meager pension of Rs. 1,383/-per month with the reliefs sanctioned from time to time, in spite the fact that the petitioner had been reminding the authorities to revise the pension and pay her dues, which they were otherwise bound to do suo motu, once the post then held by the petitioner was sanctioned a higher pay scale with retrospective effect from 01/01/1996. 4. The petitioner further alleged as follows:- After a long delay of about 7 years, for no fault of the petitioner, her pension benefits ultimately came to the revised and sanctioned under Special Seal Authority no. PA-1/46/AU/GOA/406/V.113/PRI and PA-1/46/AV/GOA-406/V.113/PRI, both dated 20/02/2004, whereby the retirement benefits sanctioned earlier under Special Seal Authority dated 7/1/1997 came to be revised as under:- Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Commutation of Pension Pension Rs. 4170 Rs. 3079 -------------- Rs. 48423 Rs. 1,16,609 Rs. 1091 (Lumpsum difference) (Lumpsum difference) (Monthly difference for the first month of retirement) 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that payment of her rightfully dues after a protracted delay of nearly 7 years has not only caused hardships and tribulations but also deprived the petitioner of considerable income which she would have earned on investments in appropriate agencies like Postal Savings, thereby supplementing the only source of her income viz. pension, to make ends meet. pension, to make ends meet. The delay in payment of the petitioners rightful dues, which would have earned to the petitioner interests at the same rates as being paid on savings in G.P.F., had those dues been paid in time, would have fetched in 2005, an amount of Rs. 2,32,240/-. The petitioner has been made to suffer a loss or she has been deprived of a sum of Rs. 2,43,852/- that is the said sum of Rs. 2,32,240/- plus Rs. 11,612/- being the interest accruable on the said amount from the aforesaid date till the date of filing of this petition at the rate of 6% p.a. The Petitioner put up her grievance before the Registrar General of High Court of Bombay by her representation dated 31/07/2004, claiming interests on her retirement dues paid with a delay of almost 7 years. However the petitioner did not hear anything in the matter. Hence the petition. 6. In response to the petition, the Registrar (Legal), High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay filed affidavit in reply. It has been stated as under:- The Petitioner retired as Section Officer on superannuation with effect from 01/03/1997 and her pension case was finalised before the date of her retirement and she has got the pension benefits on unrevised pay scale in terms of Authority letter bearing no. PAI/20/Bombay/DCRG/MAH/53072/PRI/96-97 dated 07/01/1997. The following pension benefits were sanctioned on unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200/-. “1. D.C.R.G. Rs. 91,827/- 2. Commutation of Pension Rs. 57,865/- 3. Pension Rs. 1,383/-” The petitioner got the pension benefits as above on unrevised pay scale till she received the further Authority letter bearing no. PA-I/46/AU/Goa-406/V-113, dated 20/02/2004, on the basis of the revision of pay scale. Hence, the question of interest on delayed payment of Pension, Gratuity and Commutation as per Rule 129(a) and (b) of the said Rules does not arise. Even if there is delay, the statute has negatived the right of the petitioner to claim interest. 7. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it was further submitted as under:- As per the statement of revision of pay, prepared on the basis of 5th Pay Commission, on 24/06/1999, by the office of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, it is seen that in view of Government Resolution, Finance Department No. 1298/P.K.-1698/SER-10 dated 05/01/1999, the pay of the petitioner–Section Officer has been fixed at Rs. 8,300/- with effect from 01/01/1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- and her pay was raised to Rs. 8,500/- with effect from 01/01/1997. Thereafter, in view of the Judgment dated 24/08/1999 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2432 of 1999 with Civil application No. 5058 of 1999 (Appellate Side), with Writ petition No.1747 of 1999 (Original Side), it has been directed that the arrears for the period from 01/01/1996 to 30/06/1999 be paid to all the pensioners in three equal annual installments, out of which the first installment shall be paid during the then current financial year and the next two installments in two financial years to follow. On the basis of the said judgment, the Government, Finance Department, issued a Resolution No. PEN. 1099/302/SER-4 dated 15/11/1999 directing to pay arrears in respect of pension, Gratuity and Commutation in three equal installments during the financial years that is before 31st March of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively to the pensioners/family pensioners who retired/died in harness between 10/01/1996 to 30/06/1999 without waiting for verification of pay, under the said Rules, by the Pay Verification Unit. Various further Government Resolutions in respect of first, second and third installments were also issued by the Government and were sent to the office of the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa by the Registrar of High Court at Bombay. However, the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa has not followed the Government directions as per the said Government Resolutions and as such the petitioner is deprived of the arrears of pension benefits payable to her in three installments on or before 31/03/2000, 31/03/2001 and 31/03/2002 as per Orders passed by the Court and Orders issued to that effect by the Government vide the said Government Resolutions. From the Authority letter dated 20/02/2004, it is seen that the petitioner was paid the arrears on account of pension benefits collectively instead of three installments, on 20/02/2004. Since, the petitioner, who retired on superannuation with effect from 01/03/1997, has already been sanctioned the pension benefits that is Pension, Gratuity and Commutation before her date of retirement under Authority letter No.PAI/20/Bombay/DCRG/MD/MAH/53072/PRI/96-97 (regarding Gratuity), PAI/AU/Goa/406/V.113/PRI/9697 (regarding Pension) and PAI/46/AU/Goa/V.113/PRI/96-97 (regarding Commutation) dated 07/01/1997 respectively, the question of delay in payment of interest on pension benefits as claimed by petitioner does not arise. 8. 8. The Registrar (Legal) further stated in his affidavit as follows:- The notification of Government of Maharashtra regarding revision of pay scale was received in the office of High Court of Bombay at Goa on 28/04/1999. The orders regarding fixation of pay of all employees were issued somewhere in the month of June,1999 and in the case of petitioner the order revising her pay scale was dated 24/06/1996. At least eight months are required from 24/06/1999 so as to get sufficient time in the normal course to revise the pension benefits. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioner should have got her revised pension benefits on or before 24/04/2000. On 17/08/1999, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa, requesting to forward her application dated 17/08/1999 to the Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay for sanction of Revised Pension as per Government Resolution No. 1099/238/SER-4, dated 29/07/1999. This application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Accounts Officer, Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay vide letter dated 23/08/1999 and the Accountant General in turn by letter dated 18/09/2000 (received in Panaji Bench office on 29/09/2000) returned the petitioner's case requesting office of the Additional Registrar, Panaji, to forward the Service Book for final revision after fixing pay as on 01/01/1996. Thus, there was a delay on the part of Accountant General's office of over one year to reply to the letter dated 23/08/1999. Thereafter there was a series of correspondence with the Accountant General regarding the pension case as there were various objections raised by the Accountant General/Pay Verification Unit from time to time, which were promptly cleared. In the circumstances above, the delay caused for payment of petitioner's dues is not seven years but is approximately of four years. The petitioner is not entitled to interest on the arrears of the revised pension. Hence there is no substance in the petition which deserves to be dismissed. 9. ShriV. R. Tamba, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that prayer (ii) of the petition does not survive and that the petitioner is only interested in receiving interest on the arrears of pension for the last seven years that is with effect from March, 1997 to 16/05/2004. He contended that the said delay is unreasonable and unjustifiable. 9. ShriV. R. Tamba, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that prayer (ii) of the petition does not survive and that the petitioner is only interested in receiving interest on the arrears of pension for the last seven years that is with effect from March, 1997 to 16/05/2004. He contended that the said delay is unreasonable and unjustifiable. According to Shri Tamba, the case of the petitioner is fairly covered by the Judgment dated 18/07/2001 of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001. He read out paragraphs no. 14 and 15 of the said judgment and pointed out that this court has granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum on similar grounds as claimed by the petitioner in the present petition. Relying upon Rule 129-B of the said Rules, he, however, conceded that the interest payable as per this Rule is 10% per annum. 10. Per contra, Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the facts in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001 are different from the facts of this case. He submitted that in the present case the interest is claimed on the pension benefits accrued after retirement whereas in the Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001, the petitioner was not paid the original pension and other retirement benefits in time. According to Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner in the present petition was rightly and regularly paid the pension in time. He read out paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by Registrar (Legal), High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay. He further argued that Rule 129–B of the said Rules will not help the petitioner in view of Sub- Rule 5(b) thereof. He, however, fairly conceded that still the question remains as to what is to be done if there is inordinate and unjustifiable delay in making the payment, after becoming entitled to revised pension benefits. He invited our attention to the fact that the scheme was formulated as per the 5th Pay Commission on 24/06/2009 and further time was taken for administrative procedure since it had to go to the Finance department, Accounts Department, etc. till the same was finalised. He therefore contended that the delay cannot be calculated from March,1997, as claimed. He invited our attention to the fact that the scheme was formulated as per the 5th Pay Commission on 24/06/2009 and further time was taken for administrative procedure since it had to go to the Finance department, Accounts Department, etc. till the same was finalised. He therefore contended that the delay cannot be calculated from March,1997, as claimed. In all fairness, he submitted that the payment of interest could be considered for about four years, from April 2000 to 16/05/2004, as has been agreed by the Registrar(Legal) in his affidavit. He invited our attention to paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 wherein it is mentioned that the arrears of pension were directed to be paid by the Government in three equal installments during the financial year that is before 31st March, 2000; 31st March, 2001 and 31st March, 2002, in spite of which, the petitioner was paid entire arrears of pension amount collectively on 16/5/2004. Therefore, according to Shri V. Rodrigues, interest could be ordered to be paid in the same manner by calculating the same on the said installments that is on the first installment from 1/4/2000 till 16/5/2004; on the second installment from 1/4/2001 till 16/5/2004 and on the balance third installment from 1/4/2001 till 16/05/2004. Shri V. Rodrigues further contended that since Rule 129-B is not applicable to the present petition, rate of interest mentioned therein cannot be applied to the petitioner. He submitted that some reasonable interest could be awarded. 11. In rejoinder, Mr. V. R. Tamba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that 10% interest, on an average, is not claimed as statutory but on the basis of that which was prevailing at the relevant time. 12. We have gone through the petition, reply and documents on record as also the citation relied upon by the petitioner. 13. In the present petition, the dispute relates to the pension benefits only and not to other retirement benefits. Rule 129-B of the said Rules provides as under: “129-B. Interest on delayed payment of Pension. 12. We have gone through the petition, reply and documents on record as also the citation relied upon by the petitioner. 13. In the present petition, the dispute relates to the pension benefits only and not to other retirement benefits. Rule 129-B of the said Rules provides as under: “129-B. Interest on delayed payment of Pension. (1) If the payment of pension has been authorised after six months from the date when its payment became due and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributed to administrative lapse, interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum in respect of the period beyond six months shall be paid on the amount of pension: Provided that, no interest shall be payable if the delay in payment of pension was attributed to the failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down in this Chapter; Provided further that, no interest shall be payable for the period for which a provisional pension is sanctioned. In case of Government Servant to whom provisional pension is sanctioned an interest as provided shall be paid after a period of six months from the cessation of provisional pension till the final pension is authorised. (2) On an application made by the pensioner the concerned Administrative Department in Mantralaya shall consider the request for payment of interest and where the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of pension was caused on account of administrative lapse, that Department shall make a recommendation to the Finance Department for the payment of interest. (3) If the recommendation of the Department made under sub-rule (2) is accepted by the Finance Department, the Department concerned shall issue Government sanction for the payment of interest. (4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been authorised with the concurrence of the Finance Department, the Department concerned shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants concerned who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of pension and recover the amount of interest required to be paid from the Government servant, or servants concerned, including the concerned officer, who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of pension. (5) If as a result of Government's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant, the amount of pension already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of ---- (a) grant of pay higher than the pay on which pension, already paid, was determined; or (b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned, no interest on the arrears of pension shall be paid.” 14. From the above provision of Rule 129-B(5)(b) of the said Rules, it is clear that if the enhancement in the amount of pension already paid to the Government servant on his retirement is as a result of decision of Government taken subsequent to the retirement of the Government servant on account of liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned, then no interest on the arrears of pension is payable. The petitioner retired on 28/2/1997, after office hours. The pension case was finalised before the date of retirement and the petitioner started getting the pension benefits on time. There was no delay in regular payment of pension benefit on unrevised pay scale, to the petitioner, from time to time. Subsequently, by resolution dated 05/01/1999, the Government fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 8,300/- retrospectively as from 01/01/1996, in the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- and her pay was raised to Rs. 8,500/- w.e.f. 01/01/1997 and so on. Insofar as the arrears of pension benefits on account of revised pay, as from 1/1/1997 are concerned, the same were paid to the petitioner on 16/5/2004. The amount, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 1,18,009/-. Hence the question of claiming interest on arrears of pension benefits right from the beginning does not arise. Sub-rule 5(b) of Rule 129-B of the said Rules has denied right to the petitioner to claim interest on account of delay in payment of arrears of pension. 15. The question is whether the payment of the arrears of pension in terms of revised pay scale can be made after any number of years, at the whims of the Government, under the garb of the said sub rule (5)(b) of Rule 129-B of the said Rules? The answer to the above would certainly be in the negative. 15. The question is whether the payment of the arrears of pension in terms of revised pay scale can be made after any number of years, at the whims of the Government, under the garb of the said sub rule (5)(b) of Rule 129-B of the said Rules? The answer to the above would certainly be in the negative. In the present case, payment of actual pension benefit on revised pay scale was not paid to the petitioner till 16/5/2004 and she started getting the said benefit as from 16/5/2004. The petitioner continued to receive the pension benefits on unrevised pay scale, till 16/5/2004. According to the petitioner, there is inordinate delay of seven years which is from 1/1/1997 to 16/5/2004. Though, inordinate delay in payment of rightful dues cannot be justified, however, in terms of the said sub rule (5)(b) of Rule 129-B, of the said Rules, reasonable delay in payment of such dues, on account unavoidable circumstances, and genuine administrative procedure, can be understood and can be taken into account. Once the report of the 5th Pay Commission was received, reasonable time was taken by the Finance department of the Government to fix the pay of the employees. By Government resolution no. 1298/P.K.-1698/SER-10 dated 05/01/1999, the pay of the petitioner came to be fixed at Rs. 8,300/-. The notification of the Government of Maharashtra regarding revision of pay scale was received in the office of the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 28/04/1999 and orders regarding fixation of pay as per the revised pay scale were issued somewhere in the month of June,1999. On 24/6/1999, the office of the High Court of Bombay at Goa prepared the statement of revision of pay, on the basis of 5th Pay Commission, in respect of the petitioner. On 17/08/1999, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa, requesting to forward her application dated 17/08/1999 to the Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay for sanction of Revised Pension as per Government Resolution No. 1099/238/SER-4, dated 29/07/1999. On 17/08/1999, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa, requesting to forward her application dated 17/08/1999 to the Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay for sanction of Revised Pension as per Government Resolution No. 1099/238/SER-4, dated 29/07/1999. This application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Accounts Officer, Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay vide letter dated 23/08/1999 and the Accountant General in turn by letter dated 18/09/2000 (received in Panaji Bench office on 29/09/2000) returned the petitioner's case requesting office of the Additional Registrar, Panaji, to forward the Service Book for final revision after fixing pay as on 01/01/1996. Thus, there was a delay on the part of Accountant General's office of over one year to reply to the letter dated 23/08/1999. Thereafter, there was a series of correspondence with the Accountant General regarding the pension case as there were various objections raised by the Accountant General/Pay Verification Unit from time to time, which were cleared. 16. According to Registrar(Legal) of the respondent no. 1, at least eight (8) months were required from 24/6/1999 so as to get sufficient time in the normal course to revise the pension benefits. The above statement made on oath has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder to the affidavit of the Registrar(Legal). The Registrar has stated that in all fairness, the petitioner should have got her revised pension benefits on or before 24/04/2000. According to the Registrar(Legal), the delay, therefore, is not of seven years but approximately of four years. We find much force in the genuine explanation for reasonable delay afforded by the Registrar(Legal). We are inclined to hold that there is delay of about four years in payment of rightful dues of the petitioner. We hold that the delay is from 1/4/2000 to 16/5/2004. 17. In the circumstances above, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the interest, on the arrears of pension, for a period of about four years starting from 01/04/2000 till 16/05/2004. 18. As has been rightly contended by Shri V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate, there was unreasonable delay on the part of the respondents in making payment of original pension itself, in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001. The Rule is that pension and retirement benefits are to be paid within two months of the retirement. 18. As has been rightly contended by Shri V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate, there was unreasonable delay on the part of the respondents in making payment of original pension itself, in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001. The Rule is that pension and retirement benefits are to be paid within two months of the retirement. Since there was unreasonable and unjustifiable delay in payment of pension and retirement benefits, the respondents were held responsible for the payment of interest and following certain precedents, the Division Bench of this Court in that W. P. No. 73 0f 2001 directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner towards the delayed payment. Such is not the case in the present petition. The petitioner retired with effect from 01/03/1997. Her pension case was finalised prior to that as per the Authority letter dated 07/01/1997 and she got the pension benefits on unrevised pay scale within the prescribed time and continued to get the same regularly. Therefore, the above citation is not applicable to the present case. 19. In terms of the Judgment dated 24/8/1999, of this Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2432 of 1999 with Civil Application No. 5058 of 1999 (Appellate Side) with Writ Petition No. 1747 of 1999 (Original Side), the Government, Finance Department had issued a resolution dated 15/11/1999 and had directed to pay the arrears in respect of pension, etc., in three equal installments during the financial year i.e. on or before 31/3/2000, 31/3/2001 and 31/3/2002. In case of the petitioner, however, She was not paid the arrears of pension benefits in three installments as per the Government directions. She was deprived of the said benefit of payment in three installments on or before 31/03/2000, 31/03/2001 and 31/03/2002 and was paid the said arrears collectively on 20/02/2004. Therefore, the payment of interest should be ordered in three installments, in the manner as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 20. The next question that remains to be seen is as to what should be the reasonable rate of interest to be awarded? The petitioner cannot claim the interest at the rate of 12% in terms of the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001 or at the rate of 10% in terms of Rule 129-B of the said Rules, since the rate of 12% in Writ Petition no. The petitioner cannot claim the interest at the rate of 12% in terms of the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 73 of 2001 or at the rate of 10% in terms of Rule 129-B of the said Rules, since the rate of 12% in Writ Petition no. 73 of 2001 was awarded in the facts and circumstances of that case whereas the rate of 10%, as envisaged in Rule 129-B is not applicable to the case of the present petitioner. In the calculation made by the petitioner which is at page no. 39 of the paper book, the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from March, 1997 till the year 2000; at the rate of 11% per annum for the year 2000-2001; at the rate of 9.5% per annum for the year 2001-2002; at the rate of 9% per annum for the year 2002-2003 and for subsequent period at the rate of 8% per annum. The average rate of interest claimed by the petitioner is approximately 10% per annum. It is not disputed that during the relevant period the rate of interest paid by the Nationalized Banks was approximately 10% per annum. We therefore hold that the reasonable rate of interest to which the petitioner is entitled is 10% per annum. 21. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum, on the amount of arrears of pension, for the period starting from 01/04/2000 till 16/05/2004 towards the delayed payment of arrears of pension. The calculation of the total amount of interest shall be made in three installments as follows:- The amount of arrears of pension shall be divided into three equal parts. Interest on the first part shall be calculated from 1/4/2000 to 16/5/2004. Interest on the second part shall be calculated from 1/4/2001 till 16/5/2004. Lastly, interest on the third part shall be calculated from 1/4/2002 till 16/5/2004. The respondents shall make the payment of total interest amount so calculated within a period of twelve weeks from today. 22. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.