ORDER 1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 5th respondent/Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Roc No.4597/06/T2-1, dated 27.03.2007, quash the same insofar as para-3 in respect of payment of interest and direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.m. for the following amounts: a) For the gratuity amount of Rs.2,30,112/- from 01.04.2001 to 22.10.2006; b) For the settlement of leave amount of Rs.71,231/- from 01.04.2001 to 25.04.2007 ; and c) For arrears of salary on refixation from 01.04.2001 upto the date of disbursement,and grant such other relief as the Court deems fit. 2. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that it is a pathetic case where the petitioner’s husband by name Muthukumaraswamy, while serving as Selection Grade Executive Officer at Sattankulam, Tirunelveli District, from 09.06.1997 to 20.10.1997, was placed under suspension by the orders of the Director of Town Panchayat by proceedings dated 16.10.1997 and that, while the proceedings were pending, he died on 31.12.2000. When the law is clear that, on the demise of a Government Servant, the departmental proceedings faced by him will stand abated, in the case of the petitioner’s husband, after his death, the petitioner/widow was though settled with the funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and also consortium payment of Rs.1 lakh which is applicable to all government servants dying in service, other major retirement benefits like gratuity, leave surrender, increment, etc. were not settled for a long time. Hence, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing W.P. No.25360 of 2004 and the said petition was disposed of by order dated 08.12.2005 by observing that it was not in dispute that, after complying with other formalities, the Accountant General has passed the order dated Nil, September, 2005, quantifying the amount but the second respondent, even after receipt of the said report, has not disbursed the amount. So observing, this Court had directed the third respondent therein viz., the Principal Accountant General, Chennai-18, to pass final orders on the petitioner’s claim pursuant to the recommendation made by the second respondent/Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. So observing, this Court had directed the third respondent therein viz., the Principal Accountant General, Chennai-18, to pass final orders on the petitioner’s claim pursuant to the recommendation made by the second respondent/Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Based on such direction issued by this Court, the Accountant General also sanctioned the gratuity amount and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 2,30,112/- on 22.10.2006. But unfortunately, the period of suspension was not regulated. 2(a). Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, during the period of suspension, the petitioner’s husband was paid 50% of the salary and, after his demise, as the suspension period has to be treated as duty for all practical purposes, the widow/petitioner is entitled to get the remaining 50% of the salary as no departmental proceedings could continue in view of death of her husband. Further, as per the Government Orders in force, the retirement benefits have to be settled within 90 days from the date of death of the Government Servant. As those benefits have been settled much belatedly, she is also entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from 01.04.2000 to 22.10.2006 for the gratuity. 2(b). Learned Senior Counsel added that even five years after the demise of the petitioner’s husband in 2000 i.e., subsequent to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 08.12.2005, directing the Principal Accountant General to pass final orders on the petitioner’s claim on the recommendation made by the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, the authorities did not come forward to comply with the order so as to disburse the service benefits to the widow/petitioner. According to him, when it is an admitted case of delay in settlement of retirement benefits despite this Court’s Order, it is but necessary that a suitable direction is issued to the respondents to pay interest on the belated payment at the rate of 12% per annum. 2(c). According to him, when it is an admitted case of delay in settlement of retirement benefits despite this Court’s Order, it is but necessary that a suitable direction is issued to the respondents to pay interest on the belated payment at the rate of 12% per annum. 2(c). Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when the petitioner again moved this Court by filing W.P. No.1309 of 2007 seeking for issuance of a mandamus to, a) regulate the suspension period of the petitioner’s husband from 16.10.97 to 07.03.2000 and draw and disburse 50% of the balance of salary; b) grant annual increments and draw and reimburse the difference amount; c) encashement of surrender leave for 240 days applicable to petitioner’s husband, and d) pay interest for settlement benefits @ 12% p.a. from 01.04.2001 to 22.10.2006 for gratuity, within a reasonable time, even after disposal of the said writ petition vide orders dated 10.01.2007, giving another direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 30.11.2006 and pass appropriate orders, unfortunately, the respondents have not even bothered to comply with the same when they are legally bound to disburse the service benefits and thereby, they exhibited their total heedlessness to the orders this Court, as a result, the orders were put into cold storage. 2(d). Finally, learned senior counsel added that when the case of the petitioner was twice dealt with by this Court and the orders were not complied with in letter and spirit, considering the plight of the petitioner, this Court, in order to give a quietus to the issue, by orders dated 19.12.2011, also referred the present Writ Petition to Lok Adalat for an amicable settlement. Such indulgence shown to the respondents also went in vain. Therefore, when two earlier orders were not complied with and the authorities exhibited their hard-hearted approach, learned Senior Counsel submitted that this is a fit case to impose even 12% interest by fixing the liability on the callous officers concerned. 3. In reply, learned Additional Government Pleader, by filing counter affidavit stated that, with his lengthy submissions, learned Senior Counsel has blown the issues out of proportion. In fact, the orders passed by this Court were implemented by disbursing to the petitioner leave salary of Rs.71,231/- on 25.04.2007, her husband’s suspension period from 20.11.1997 to 06.03.2000 was regularized with subsequent increments and Rs.71,651/- was also paid on 21.08.2008. In fact, the orders passed by this Court were implemented by disbursing to the petitioner leave salary of Rs.71,231/- on 25.04.2007, her husband’s suspension period from 20.11.1997 to 06.03.2000 was regularized with subsequent increments and Rs.71,651/- was also paid on 21.08.2008. According to him, the petitioner has been paid with Rs.2,30,112/- towards DCRG on 09.10.2006, Rs.71,231/- towards Leave Salary on 25.04.2007 and Rs.71,651/- on 21.08.2008 towards regularization of suspension period from 20.10.1997 to 08.03.2000 as duty period and further increments sanctioned for settlement of 50% remaining salary and subsequent increments. Therefore, the delay is neither wanton nor willful but it was only due to some administrative exigencies. By handing over a cheque for Rs.4,154/- towards the incremental arrears for the period from 09.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 in the revised scale vide cheque No.762600, dated 01.07.2013, drawn on Indian Bank, Dharmapuri Branch, which was also received with acknowledgment by the petitioner’s counsel, learned Additional Government Pleader, after referring to the calculation sheet for payment of interest @ 12%, pointed out that now, the total sum against interest payable to the petitioner is calculated as Rs.4,74,955/- and also Rs.35,686/- towards Gratuity difference to regularization of suspension period from 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2013, and such calculation is also endorsed by the learned Senior Counsel as correct and in order. By admitting that there was some delay in disbursal on the part of some of the officials concerned and by submitting the list of Officers responsible for the delay and pointing out that some of those officer retired already, he left it open to this Court to pass suitable orders. 4. Mr. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel, at this juncture, by referring to Rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules would submit that even if the officers concerned responsible for the delay in processing the pension papers were allowed to retire from service, could not be proceeded against provided four years after the date of their retirement, such immunity cannot be enjoyed by any officer wherever orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court are flagrantly violated. 5. This Court finds considerable force in the above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel. Now, it is more appropriate to extract below Rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, “2 (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,-- (i)... ....... 5. This Court finds considerable force in the above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel. Now, it is more appropriate to extract below Rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, “2 (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,-- (i)... ....... (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;... ” In terms of the above Rules, if, in the normal course, the officers concerned responsible for the delay in processing the pension papers were allowed to retire from service, could be proceeded against provided if it is within four years from the date of their retirement, but, after the expiry of four years, no departmental proceedings could be initiated in view of the above Rule. At the same time, it should also be highlighted that such immunity cannot be enjoyed by any officer wherever orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court are flagrantly violated. The protection and immunity given by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules in favour of the Government Servant can be invoked by any erring officer against whom violation of Rules is charged. But, the very same erring officer cannot invoke the protection given under the said Rule on violation any order of the Court, for, no rule can be framed or enacted under any law giving protection against violation of any court’s order since grant of any such absolute immunity for breach of court’s order would make the rule of law redundant. In the case on hand, the Director of Town Panchyats and the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat concerned have failed in their official duty to process the application and to regularize the services on account of the death of the petitioner’s husband. Unfortunately, apart from the present writ petition, the petitioner had to move two earlier writ petitions as mentioned above, however, despite positive directions from the court, she could not get the relief. As a result, she is made to once again approach this Court by way of present writ petition not able to make both the ends meet on account of non-payment of the pensionary benefits legally due to her. As a result, she is made to once again approach this Court by way of present writ petition not able to make both the ends meet on account of non-payment of the pensionary benefits legally due to her. When the present writ petition was pending, to show some indulgence, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat whereat also, the authorities were not co-operative and hence, the matter was returned to the file of this Court. Therefore, it is really shocking to note that two earlier orders of this Court, as mentioned above, were not implemented by the officers concerned. The authorities knew well that disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant, who died during pendency of the proceedings, shall stand automatically abated. By being alive to the odd circumstances in which family of the deceased might have been put subsequent to the demise of the Government Servant, the authorities should have acted humanly and even otherwise, they should have reacted with all sensitivity and alacrity at least when this Court not once but twice issued directions to alleviate the grievance of the poor widow. Such stiff approach of the authorities must be viewed with all seriousness as otherwise, it would lead to anarchy in the administrative wings. When the authorities acted with such heedless and hard approach, it is but proper and necessary that this Court issues an exemplary direction so as to alleviate the longstanding grievance of the petitioner. 6. While considering the prayer for disbursal of pension and other related benefits and the complaint of delay in disbursal, in State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair AIR 1985 SC 356 , the Apex Court held that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become valuable rights and property in their hands and culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment is made. Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dr. Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1999 SC 1212 : (1999) 3 SCC 438 : 1999-I-LLJ-1335, held that if rules/instructions which prescribe time schedule for settlement of retirement dues are followed strictly, the pension being not a bounty but right of retired Government servant should be ordered to be paid forthwith by awarding suitable interest for the delayed payment of retirement benefits. In yet another decision reported in Bal Kishore Mody v. Arun Kumar Singh and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 174 : 2002-III-LLJ-1085 while considering the delay in making payment of retirement benefits, the Apex Court directed the delaying parties to pay interest on the retirement benefits @ 15% p.a. The above mentioned judgments on the timely disbursement of pensionary benefits to the retired Government Servants, indisputably indicates the necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to the Government Servant immediately after his retirement. Consequently, as mentioned above, it is inevitable for this Court to proceed against the officials who were responsible for the appalling delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits to the poor widow of the deceased Government employee. 7 . It is necessary to quote below the List of Officers said to be responsible for the Delay, List of Assistant Directors who are responsible for the delay Sl. No. Name of ADTP Working Period Total working Period Remarks From To Y M D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 M.Mangapathi 12799 30.04.01 1 9 18 Retired on 30.04.01 2 K.Kaliyaperumal (I/c) 1501 31.08.01 - 4 - Retired on 30.10.02 3 P.Balasubramaniam 1901 31.01.02 - 5 - Retired on 31.01.02 4 S.Thiruvengadam (I/c) 1202 2402 - 2 2 Retired 5 S.Jayachandran 3402 22.04.03 1 - 20 Retired on 31.07.05 6 P.Ramasamy (I/c) 23.04.03 27.04.03 - - 5 - 7 R.Jayabal 28.04.03 26.06.04 1 2 - Retired on 31.08.07 8 G.Mohan (I/c) 26.06.04 15.05.05 - 11 19 Retired on 31.04.09 9 A.Ambalavanan (I/c) 16.05.05 29.06.05 - 1 14 - 10 A.Abdulkalam Asath (I/c) 30.06.05 14.07.05 - - 15 - 11 A.Ambalvanan (I/c) 15.07.05 17.11.05 - 4 3 - 12 P.Balasubramaniam 18.11.05 31.05.07 1 6 14 Retired on 31.05.07 List of Head Assistant who are responsible for the delay Sl. No. Name of H.A TVL Working Period Total Working Period Remarks From To Y M D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 S.Ravichander 01.01.01 14.09.01 - 8 14 Retired on 30.01.12 2 Vacant 15.09.01 17.10.01 - - - - 3 R.Senthilkumar 18.10.01 30.09.02 - 11 13 Now EO Kalambur 4 Vacant 11002 21002 - - - - 5 D.Denzil Johnson 31002 28.04.03 - 6 26 Retired on 30.04.03 6 Vacant 29.04.03 15.05.03 - - - - 7 S.Ravichander 16.05.03 15.06.13 3 1 1 Retired on 31.01.12 8 Vacant 16.06.06 17.06.09 - - - - Also, the calculation sheet for payment of interest at 12% per annum, as furnished by the learned Additional Government Pleader is extracted below, Abstract Calculation sheet for Payment of Interest @ 12% 1.DCRG Amount (1.7.2001 to 30.09.2006) Rs. 2,30,112/- Interest AmountRs.1,88,243/ 2. Gratuity Difference due to regularisation of suspension period 1.7.2001 to 30.06.2013 Rs. 35,686/- Rs.1,00,220/- 3. Due to Regularisation suspension period Arrears of Salary from 09.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 Rs. 4,154/- Rs. 12,080/- 4. Due to Regularisation suspension period arrears of Salary from 20.10.97 to 08.03.2000 Rs. 71,651/- Rs. 89,598/- 5. Leave Salary (Surrender) Rs. 71,231/- Rs. 66,823/- 6. Pension Arrears Rs. 17,991/- Total Rs.4,74,955/- 8. Based on the above particulars furnished by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court directs the first respondent/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai, to ascertain the details from the above list regarding the Officials concerned who were in charge of the affairs to implement the two earlier orders of this Court as mentioned above in regard to the case of the petitioner and to take suitable action so that 50% of the interest amount out of 100% interest now payable to the petitioner is recovered from them in equal proportion. To avoid any further delay, it is directed that, at the first instance, the amount due for recovery from the errant officials shall be paid by the respondents/Department and thereafter, the same shall be recovered from the monthly pension of the individuals concerned. Further, the first respondent is also directed to take necessary steps for settlement of Rs.4,74,955/- payable to the petitioner towards interest plus Rs.35,686/- against gratuity difference as mentioned in the list furnished above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.