Judgment : 1. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 28.02.2005. But he was not permitted to retire due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. 2. While so, by G.O(D)No.488 Public Works Department, dated 26.09.2005, the charges against the petitioner were dropped. Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:- "3. The Government have examined the case carefully and independently the charges framed, explanation of the Delinquent Officer, findings of the Inquiry Officer, further representation of the Delinquent Officer and details furnished in the personal hearing along with connected records and decided not to press the charges against Thiru S.Jayachandran Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and to drop further action against him. Accordingly, they direct that further action against Thiru S.Jayachandran Executive Engineer, Public Works Department be dropped." 3. According to the petitioner, after the charges were dropped, his terminal benefits were settled. As per paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the details of payments made to the petitioner reads as follows:- 4. It is the case of the petitioner that payments have been made belatedly. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the belated payment of commutation of pension, leave salary and family benefit fund. But the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 of the second respondent. In the impugned order, it was stated that since the Government took a lenient view and dropped the charges, the petitioner cannot seek for payment of interest. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-towards gratuity but instead of paying the entire amount, the respondents had deducted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- which is due towards interest for the House Building Advance and he was paid a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents refuting the allegations. In paragraph 7 of the counter, the details of payment made to the petitioner were given as follows:- "a. By the Pay and Accounts Officer, Chennai -6 Commutation of Pension Rs.2,86,882/- on 05.01.2007. b. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rs.2,30,000/-on 06.06.2007 by the Pay and Accounts Officer (East), Chennai -5. c. Terminal Leave Salary Rs.2,75,121/- on 08.06.2007 d. Special Provident Fund 1984 and 2000 Rs.25,118/- on 30.07.2007." 7. b. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rs.2,30,000/-on 06.06.2007 by the Pay and Accounts Officer (East), Chennai -5. c. Terminal Leave Salary Rs.2,75,121/- on 08.06.2007 d. Special Provident Fund 1984 and 2000 Rs.25,118/- on 30.07.2007." 7. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.38,272/-towards interest for the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- was sanctioned by the Government in G.O.No.267 Public Works Department, dated 21.04.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. 8. Heard both sides. 9. As far as DCRG amount is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to be paid Rs.3,50,000/-. But Rs.2,30,000/- alone was paid belatedly and Rs.38,232/-was paid as interest for the belated payment of DCRG. Rs.1,20,000/-of DCRG amount was not paid and the same was adjusted towards the interest on House Building Advance. In my view, the respondents are not correct in refusing to pay interest for Rs.1,20,000/- since the same is adjusted towards interest on House Building Advance. 10. In the impugned order, it is stated by the second respondent that since the Government had dropped the charges showing leniency, the petitioner is not entitled to interest. In my considered view, once charges are dropped, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the belated payment of settlement of terminal benefits. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 [Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. M.Deivasigamani], following paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 [S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another], has held that the delinquent 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. 12. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to pay interest for Rs.1,20,000/- as was done in respect of Rs.2,30,000/-vide G.O.No.267 Public Works Department, dated 21.04.2008. As far as other amounts viz., commutation of pension, leave salary and Family Benefit fund are concerned, those amounts were also settled belatedly. There is no reason to deny interest for those amounts. 12. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to pay interest for Rs.1,20,000/- as was done in respect of Rs.2,30,000/-vide G.O.No.267 Public Works Department, dated 21.04.2008. As far as other amounts viz., commutation of pension, leave salary and Family Benefit fund are concerned, those amounts were also settled belatedly. There is no reason to deny interest for those amounts. Hence, a direction is issued to pay interest at the rate of 8% for those amounts as claimed by the petitioner in view of the judgments referred to above. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.