JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, J. & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. Heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for M/s Devadason & Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.K.Chairman Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Siva Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3. Though the name of the fourth respondent is printed in the cause list, none appeared for them. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and direction issued in W.P.No.6452 of 1998, dated 25.11.2002. 3. The first respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellant and the respondents 2 to 4 herein to pay full pension treating the petitioner as a Selection Grade Professor and other related benefits with compound interest and a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of damages to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, pursuant to the interim order dated 14.12.1999, the third respondent herein was directed to disburse the commuted value of pension as ordered, pursuant to the proceedings dated 2.8.1998, which direction was complied with and the commuted value of pension was paid to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 5. The writ petitioner was a retired Professor of the appellant College stated to have completed 30 years 1 month and 28 days of service in the appellant College. On attaining the age of 58 years, he was permitted to retire on 28.2.1987. As teaching faculty are entitled to be considered for being continued till the end of the academic year, the writ petitioner made a request to the appellant/Management to permit him to continue till he attains the age of 60 years and submitted necessary application along with Medical Fitness Certificate. 6. It is stated that the appellant did not consider the application and kept the proposal pending. The further case of the writ petitioner is that his pension proposal was forwarded by the appellant only 15 days before the date of superannuation i.e. on 15.2.1987. Thereafter, the appellant passed an order dated 28.3.1987, dismissing the respondent/writ petitioner from service. Further, a criminal complaint was given by the appellant to the Police against the first respondent, alleging that he failed to return the Library Books worth Rs.1,500/-. On investigation, it was found that the complaint was false. Thereafter, the appellant passed an order dated 28.3.1987, dismissing the respondent/writ petitioner from service. Further, a criminal complaint was given by the appellant to the Police against the first respondent, alleging that he failed to return the Library Books worth Rs.1,500/-. On investigation, it was found that the complaint was false. It is further stated that the appellant caused the Librarian of the College to file a private complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, alleging theft of College Library Books, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. After full trial, the writ petitioner was acquitted by Judgment dated 24.6.1982. The appeal filed against the Judgment by the appellant was also dismissed. The appellant filed a Suit against the writ petitioner claiming damages of Rs.25,000/-alleging that the writ petitioner made certain false complaints to the authorities against the Management. The Suit appears to have been decreed in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 28.3.1987, the first respondent/writ petitioner represented to the authorities and the second respondent herein by order dated 20.3.1990, held that the order of dismissal after superannuation is illegal and that the writ petitioner is entitled for payment of pension and other terminal benefits. 7. Pursuant to the said order passed by the second respondent herein, the writ petitioner's pension proposal was forwarded by the third respondent for payment of pension and gratuity. The third respondent sanctioned Rs.1,047/- as monthly pension, Rs.38,475/- towards gratuity and Rs.770/-as family pension. Subsequently, the fourth respondent herein by order dated 02.03.1990, reduced the writ petitioner's monthly pension from Rs.1,047/- to Rs.733/-, stating that the details regarding writ petitioner's prior service in Thyagaraja College of Preceptors, Madurai, between 1962 and 1994 was not furnished. After about 13 years, on 29.3.1990, the writ petitioner was paid Rs.45,008/-, being pension, D.A., Additional D.A. and Medical Allowance for the period from 1987 to 31.8.1990, by calculating monthly pension at Rs.733/-. The writ petitioner's pension was subsequently revised based on revised UGC scale of pay and arrears were paid to the writ petitioner during 1993, however, no interest was paid on the said amounts. 8. The writ petitioner's pension was subsequently revised based on revised UGC scale of pay and arrears were paid to the writ petitioner during 1993, however, no interest was paid on the said amounts. 8. The further case of the writ petitioner was that he should be advanced to selection grade on his completion of 28 years of service as Assistant Professor, however, order was passed only on 14.5.1992 and the appellant has been consistently disobeying the orders of the Government and the writ petitioner claimed that he is entitled to a monthly pension of Rs.2,085/-together with other allowances, aggregating to Rs.4,440/-. Further, the petitioner stated that there was gross delay in releasing the DCRG which was paid during 1992-93 in two instalments without any interest for the belated payment. 9. Before the Writ Court, the official respondents contended that after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, though entitled to be considered for re-employment, the appellant/Management did not submit any proposal for re-employment of the petitioner, but, dismissed the petitioner after he attained the age of superannuation and the Director of Collegiate Education passed orders holding that such order of termination is illegal and directed the Deputy Director to issue a certificate that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner is invalid and he is eligible for sanction of pension and DCRG. It is only thereafter, the Accountant General authorised payment of pension reckoning the service of the writ petitioner from 13.7.1965. Subsequently, after getting service particulars from the College at Madurai, pension was refixed as per the UGC Scale. But, the official respondents further stated that the appellant/Management has not furnished the service particulars despite repeated reminders. It was further submitted that the Management on 20.1.1998, recommended that the writ petitioner be advanced to selection grade under career advancement scheme and only on 22.3.1998, orders were passed in this respect. Once again on request, the pension proposal was submitted and that was sanctioned. Therefore, the official respondents contended that there is no delay on their part in submitting the proposal or sanctioning the pension to the writ petitioner. 10. The appellant/Management after reiterating the various proceedings which were initiated against the writ petitioner, submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Management to sanction pension and the claim for compensation or interest is untenable. The learned single Judge framed three points for consideration viz. 10. The appellant/Management after reiterating the various proceedings which were initiated against the writ petitioner, submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Management to sanction pension and the claim for compensation or interest is untenable. The learned single Judge framed three points for consideration viz. "(a) Whether there is inordinate delay in sanctioning pension, DCRG or Communication ? If so, which respondents has caused the delay? Whether the delay caused is justifiable or bonafide ? (b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest or damages for the belated settlement of pension or other terminal benefits including commutation of pension ? (c) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to by way of compensation and payment of interest ? If so, how much ?" After carefully analysing the entire facts, the Writ Court recorded a factual finding that the appellant/Management adopted dilatory tactics from the inception for one reason or other, which resulted in the delay of 14 years in payment of pension and other terminal benefits to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 11. It is seen that the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.1987 and was entitled to pension from 1.3.1987 onwards. However, the first payment of arrears of pension was paid after a period of 3 ½ years i.e. on 07.09.1990. The second payment of arrears was made on 10.5.1995, the third payment of arrears was made on 08.03.1999 and the fourth payment of arrears on 15.4.1999. So far as DCRG, though the writ petitioner was entitled to the said amount on 1.3.1987, it was paid after a period of more than 5 ½ years i.e. on 17.12.1992 and that payment was also not the entire amount, but, a portion of the amount. The remaining portion of the amount was paid only on 13.4.1993 i.e. after about six months, after the payment of first instalment of DCRG. The third payment of the remaining DCRG was nearly 13 years, after the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The remaining portion of the amount was paid only on 13.4.1993 i.e. after about six months, after the payment of first instalment of DCRG. The third payment of the remaining DCRG was nearly 13 years, after the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Further, on considering the entire materials which were placed before the Writ Court, it was categorically held that the appellant/Management did not submit the writ petitioner's pension proposal to the third respondent and but for the action of the official respondents against the appellant/Management, the writ petitioner would have been made to suffer throughout his life and still continues to fight for the settlement of his lawful dues. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that there was some confusion in the writ petitioner's name which resulted in certain correspondence and he referred to certain communication in this regard. 13. We are at a loss to understand as to how the appellant/Management could take such a stand moreso when the writ petitioner was employed in the College for thirty long years. Curiously enough, the appellant/Management after permitting the writ petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, passed an order dated 28.3.1987, dismissing the writ petitioner from service. In the said order, the writ petitioner was permitted to peruse the report of the enquiry officer on any working day and if he wanted the copy of the report, he has to pay Re.1/- per page. The order further state that the writ petitioner can file an appeal to the President of the College Council within 15 days. The writ petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal, but the appeal was not considered and put to cold storage. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations to the Government and Official respondents on 9.3.1988, 19.4.1988, 23.4.1988. Ultimately, the Government by letter Ms.No.393, dated 20.3.1990, ordered that the appellant/Management was not legally correct to terminate the writ petitioner after the date of superannuation and that he is entitled for all retirement benefits as per Rules. The Government directed the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Madras Region to issue a certificate that the writ petitioner is eligible for pension. 14. The Government directed the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Madras Region to issue a certificate that the writ petitioner is eligible for pension. 14. Thus, taking into consideration that there has been a gross delay of over fourteen years in payment of pension and DCRG was not released, which was solely attributable to the Appellant/Management the Writ Court was fully justified in directing payment of Rs.60,000/-towards interest and damages for the belated payment of the retiral benefits. 15. In view of the cogent reasons assigned by the Writ Court, we find no ground to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.