JUDGMENT Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, challenged order dated 21.7.1999, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur, whereby the MAT allowed the original application in favour of the applicants/legal representatives of Satyadeo Awasthi the deceased employee, by passing the following order. “Original Application is allowed in the following terms : The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.41,803/- towards interest from 9.2.93 onwards with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on this amount of Rs.41,803/- from 9.2.93 till payment is made to the Legal Representatives of the Original Deceased Applicant. The respondents are directed to comply with the said order within a period of three months from the receipt of this order.” 2. There is no serious issue with regard to the fact that the respondent employee was exonerated from the charges. It was the reason for not granting the retirement benefits i.e. pension and gratuity at the relevant time. Once the employee is exonerated, the pensionary benefits and the interest because of delay on the amount so not paid, in our view, just cannot be denied, because natural consequences about the situation would be that there are no charges and/or enquiry and the person, who is retired, is entitled for the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The denial of the pensionary benefits/amount to the respondent employee just cannot be overlooked merely because the Department/petitioner decided to grant benefits/pension from the date of order of exoneration. It is settled that the pensionary benefits is a constitutional right of employee, who has worked till the date of retirement. The petitioner – Department if failed to make payment on due date, there are provisions which itself permit the employee to claim interest. There is nothing on record to show that enquiry was delayed at the instance of respondent-employee. Even otherwise, once the respondent-employee is exonerated, we are inclined to observe that he is entitled for pensionary amount with interest because this exoneration brings the position back and it is required to be concluded that the petitioner – Department has not paid the amount on due date. 3. No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and/or issue of final orders thereon. 3. No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and/or issue of final orders thereon. But, once the employee is exonerated, there is no question of detaining the said amount also. But the fact of not making full payment/retirement benefits because of alleged departmental enquiry should not be read against the employee, specially when he is exonerated from all the charges. The gratuity with interest, therefore, in such situation cannot be denied. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners has strongly relied upon Rule 129 A and 129 B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and also a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakars/o Marotirao Dalal...Versus...State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 209 . We are inclined to observe that though the judgment referred to above dealt with the same provisions, the facts were totally different. That was the case of non-grant of gratuity because of pending of enquiry. That was not a case of exoneration. The rule, so cited above itself, in our view, needs to be considered in a situation where the employee's pensionary benefits are detained for want of enquiry and if exonerated, the interest shall be liable to be paid to the employee in accordance with the provisions from the applicable date. The grant of provisional pension in no way concludes the rights of the employee, once he is exonerated from the charges. Pending enquiry and/or departmental proceeding, the object of granting provisional pension itself, is subject to final decision. Once the decision is in favour of employee and against the action of employer to initiate such departmental enquiry and it has finalized the pension after passing final order, that itself in no way sufficient to deny the rights of a legal entitlement of the employee from the date of retirement. The interest on delayed payment of gratuity and/or pensionary benefits and/or pension amount, in our view, is a consequential order, basically when there is no denial to pay balance pension and/or gratuity amount. 5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners, if accepted, it means that though employee is exonerated from all the charges, but he is still punished by not paying the full amount to which he is entitled, in accordance with law, from the date of retirement. 5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners, if accepted, it means that though employee is exonerated from all the charges, but he is still punished by not paying the full amount to which he is entitled, in accordance with law, from the date of retirement. This, in our view, is impermissible and therefore, the case/claim of the respondent – employee of interest on the balance amount and/or unpaid amount, is sustainable and well within the purview of law. 6. We have gone through the reasons given in support of the order. The computation/calculation so made, based upon the material placed on record and the amount so arrived at, in no way, can be stated to be perverse and/or bad in law. The learned Tribunal Member, in fact, has considered in detail the same rules including the petitioners' stand, whereby the Tribunal agreed to grant 10% interest. The learned Member of the Tribunal, however, by recording reasons granted 12% interest. There is no perversity and/or illegality. No case is made out to interfere with the order so passed. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners makes a statement that pursuant to the order of this Court, they have deposited the amount in this Court and the same is lying with Andhra Bank. We are inclined to observe that the respondent-employee is entitled for the amount with accrued interest. The respondent – employee/legal representative is permitted to withdraw the same and the office is directed to make payment by cheque in the name of respondent no.1 (1) Smt. Urmila Satyadeo Awashti, wife of the original deceased employee. However, this will be subject to prescribed procedure. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.