ORDER : This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the first and fourth respondents to disburse retirement benefits and also family pension from 14.03.1996 to 10.02.2005 to the petitioner and legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Mariyammal. 2. The petitioner would aver among other things that his mother, namely, Mariyammal, joined as sweeper in the fourth respondent Panchayat on 01.06.1963. From 01.06.1963 to 14.03.1996, around 35 years, the petitioner mother had worked as sweeper in the fourth respondent Panchayat. On 14.03.1996, the petitioner's mother voluntarily retired and subsequently, she died on 10.02.2005 leaving behind her legal heirs. However, the petitioner alleges that the respondents has not disbursed the retirement benefits and monthly pension due to his mother. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for the relief stated supra. 3. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the said Mariyammal joined as sweeper at Kariappatti Panchayat on 01.06.1963, which was later upgraded as a Town Panchayat from 01.10.1977 and she was absorbed in the time scale of pay only from 01.10.1977. As per F.R.56(3)(d)(1) and also as per G.O.No.412, P&AR Dept dated 03.12.1996, an employee who has completed 50 years of age (or) who has completed 20 years of qualifying service (pension counting service) are eligible to apply for voluntary retirement. The petitioner mother, Mrs. Marriammal's date of birth is 01.07.1946 and the date of her application for voluntary retirement is 14.03.1996. At the time of her retirement, her age was 49 years, eight months and 14 days and therefore, she had not completed 50 years of age. The administrative authorities had not processed the voluntary retirement application as per Rules. As the petitioner's mother voluntary retirement was not as per the F.R.56(3)(d)(1), the pension proposal was rejected for want of government ratification. In other words, the administrative authorities allowed her to retire without following the rules and therefore, ratification was necessary to sanction pension to the deceased/Mariammal. 4. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit more or less reiterating the averments made by the first respondent. 5. In other words, the administrative authorities allowed her to retire without following the rules and therefore, ratification was necessary to sanction pension to the deceased/Mariammal. 4. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit more or less reiterating the averments made by the first respondent. 5. The fourth respondent has also filed a separate counter affidavit reiterating the averments of the first respondent and stated that a proposal was sent to the government for ratification of the petitioner's mother service as early as 01.03.2004 which is still pending on the file of the first respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother had voluntarily retired as early as 10.02.2005 and even then, the pensionary benefits have not been given to the legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Mariammal. He would further submit that it is the legal and constitutional obligations on the part of the respondents to sanction the pension at the earliest. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that since the petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for providing pension, it has not been sanctioned to the deceased. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that though steps have been taken by the Panchayat as early as 01.03.2004 to ratify the service of the deceased, no action has been taken by the first respondent and therefore, they could not proceed further. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. The only ground on which the deceased retirement benefits was not disbursed by the respondents that her earlier service rendered in the Village panchayat was not taken into account on the reasons that she was not put in regular service in Kariappati Village panchayat. The disputes arose owing to certain objections that were raised by the first respondent while processing the pension papers of the deceased. Accordingly, the following three questions arise in this writ petition:- Whether the services rendered by the deceased Smt. Mariyammal as sweeper in Kariyapatti Village Panchayat in non pensionable establishment for 14 + years between 01.06.1963 and 01.10.1977 should be counted (added) for the purpose of calculation of pension benefits. Accordingly, the following three questions arise in this writ petition:- Whether the services rendered by the deceased Smt. Mariyammal as sweeper in Kariyapatti Village Panchayat in non pensionable establishment for 14 + years between 01.06.1963 and 01.10.1977 should be counted (added) for the purpose of calculation of pension benefits. Its admitted position of all parties that on up-gradation of Kariyapatti Town Panchayat and the consequent absorption of the deceased in the regular scale of pay, there is no dispute on counting the period of 18 + years from 01.10.1977 to 14.03.1996 for the purposes of calculating qualifying services for pension. Whether the respondents are correct in denying/delaying pension benefits on the plea that regularising shortfall in service is pending ratification before the Government from the year 2004? Whether the legitimacy of a validly accepted VRS application can be questioned at a later date to deny pension benefits to a class IV retiree after a significant lapse of time? 11. Admittedly, the VRS application was submitted in good faith and legally accepted by the fourth respondent before relieving the deceased employee of her duties. It is not in dispute that the deceased had put in 18 + years of service under pensionable establishment and 14 + years of service under non pensionable establishment. There is no dispute that the deceased was continuously employed during the period 01.06.1963 and 14.03.1996. This is also not a case of any adverse conduct proceedings instituted or pending against the retiree. 12. The question on the method of calculation of the qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is no more res integra. The question is settled by the detailed order dated 16.4.2009 of this Court in WP.No.39177 of 2002 wherein it was held that 50% of the services in the non-pensionable establishment should be counted as qualifying services for the purpose of pension in the context of the case. The above order was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 20.09.2010 in WA No 1702 of 2010 and again affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP CC 6253 of 2011 vide order dated 15.04.2011. Therefore, the issues covered in the order dated 16.4.2009 of this Court in WP No 39177 of 2002 has now become a matter res judicata. 13. Therefore, the issues covered in the order dated 16.4.2009 of this Court in WP No 39177 of 2002 has now become a matter res judicata. 13. The above Order in WP No 39177 of 2002 came to be passed while interpreting various Government Orders issued from time to time to appoint temporary/part time employees on non-pensionable establishment and subsequent regularization of the temporary/part time appointees under regular scale of pay, upon falling of regular vacancies. Pertinently, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 08.07.2004 in WP No 11389 of 2003 had earlier upheld the view that all of the temporary employees, irrespective of the Departments they belong, have to be treated equally and cannot be discriminated. 14. Therefore, it has become a settled position of law that 50% of the services rendered on non regular pay prior to absorption employees of under pensionable establishment in regular scale of pay should be counted for the purpose of pension benefits. The judicial pronouncements came in the context of interpreting various GOs issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in this regard. Consequently, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 came to be amended apparently to harmonize the Judicial decisions and directions by incorporating a new Rule 11 (4) in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, vide GOMs No 41 Finance (Department) dated 09.02.2010. Later, this Court vide its Order dated 09.04.2014 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions WP (MD) No 16771, 16772, 16775, 16880-16882, 17000, 17001, 17859 and 17860 of 2013 had reiterated the above settled position of law that 50% of the services rendered in the non-pensionable establishment prior to absorption of employees in of non pensionable establishment on regular scale of pay should be counted for the purpose of pension benefits. In doing so, the contra interpretations of the Rule 11 (4) put forth by the Departments that could upset the above settled position were rightly rejected by this Court. The plea advanced by the Departments that the Orders of the Courts can be applicable only to the departments covered under the GOs considered in the Writ Petitions, were also rejected by this Court citing the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the equality principle across departments was upheld by this Court to extend the benefits to all similarly placed employees of the Tamil Nadu government. 15. Accordingly, the equality principle across departments was upheld by this Court to extend the benefits to all similarly placed employees of the Tamil Nadu government. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, I have no hesitation to hold that the 50% of the services rendered by the deceased Smt. Mariyammal during the period 01.06.1963 to 01.10.1977 as Sweeper in Kariyapatti Village Panchayat has to be counted for the purpose of pension benefits. 16. In view of the above position, the other two questions that arise on this petition go redundant. Nevertheless, I hold a strong view that the denying/delaying pension benefits on the plea that regularising shortfall in service is pending ratification before the Government from 2004 is without application of mind and illegal. Similarly, I am of a very firm view that the legality of a validly accepted VRS application cannot be questioned at a later date to deny pension benefits to class IV retirees owing to their disadvantageous social and financial status. In any event, the acceptance of the VRS application without following the Rules and allowing the petitioner's mother to retire cannot forfeit the service rendered by the petitioner's mother for the purpose of pensionary benefits in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No 1651 of 2000 dated 08.07.2009 and therefore the respondents ought not to have withheld the pension under any pretext. 17. Therefore, what is transpiring in the mind of this Court is that it is a pathetic state of affairs that a Class IV servant of the government hailing from the lowest social strata could not get her retirement benefits rightfully due, in her life time, even after Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was notified vide GOMs No 41, Finance (Department) dated 09.02.2010 and the Order dated 09.04.2014 of this court in a batch of Writ Petitions WP (MD) No 16771, 16772, 16775, 16880-16882, 17000, 17001, 17859 and 17860 of 2013 came to be passed. 18. 18. The New Rule 11(4) and the Order dated 09.04.2014 of this court in a batch of Writ Petitions WP (MD) No 16771, 16772, 16775, 16880-16882, 17000, 17001, 17859 and 17860 of 2013 had settled the issue for calculating the qualifying services for the purposes of pension benefits of the deceased government servant and render the submissions of the respondents before this Court to nullity. This is a classic case of how a poor litigant hailing from the lowest strata of the society had to run from pillar to post and fend for her hard earned rights that accrued on an unblemished record of around 33 years of government service. Even after 7 years of operation of the above rule, the apathetical attitude of the respondents and their carelessness had unreasonably denied to the deceased and the legal heirs of the deceased, the legitimate right to enjoy the fruits of the pension benefits of the deceased. 19. In the first place, the respondents ought to have informed the deceased person about the shortfall in the qualifying services needed for granting pension benefits at the time of requesting VRS in the absence of Rule 11 (4) of The Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978. The respondents had categorically admitted the mistake of accepting the request of the deceased person in violation of the F.R. 56 (3) (d) (1) meant for VRS in respect of both her age and period of service. Needless to mention, the above act of commission and omission of the respondents is the sole reason for the misfortune of the petitioner and the denial of the pension benefits during her life time. Needless to mention that in the event she was made aware of the implications, she ought to have put in the disputed additional 3 months and 16 days of service desired to fulfil the requirement for VRS conditions. Neither is this a case where the VRS application was made by the deceased person on an advanced date to take advantage of any employment/retirement conditions. But for the New Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the subsequent decisions of this Court, a closure to the sufferings of the heirs of the deceased person would seldom see the light of the day. 20. But for the New Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the subsequent decisions of this Court, a closure to the sufferings of the heirs of the deceased person would seldom see the light of the day. 20. It is unfathomable pain to notice that an employee after three decades of service had to litigate against her own department to get the pension benefits and face counters. The plight of class IV employees in such situations is even worse owing to their economic disadvantage. Sanitary workers/sweepers are the actual foot soldiers of Swatch Bharat Mission launched by the Government of India. They care the health and hygiene of the community. These unfortunate classes of employees don’t get to gain in knowledge and wealth in the course of their service. They just serve and survive. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the senior officials of the Departments to adequately represent and care the welfare and benefits they are entitled to. Pension benefits are the capital of post retirement existence. There is also an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in ‘property’. It is no bounty. And Article 300 A of the Constitution states that no Person shall be deprived of property without authority of law. Therefore, a constitutional obligation is cast on the part of the respondents to disburse the pension benefits promptly in time. 21. It is observed that even in cases of compulsive litigations, employers, being the state, have a bounden obligation to pursue the cases for an early conclusion. In the instant case, the respondents admit and own the mistake and it is not the case of the respondents that the deceased misled or misrepresent the respondents to get pension. Litigations must always be principled and fair and being the state, such type of litigations has always to be avoided by the respondents. 22. I am convinced that the delay in the disbursal of the retirement and pension benefits even after the operation of Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in the back of the perceived faulty admission of the VRS Application and relieving the deceased retiree overlooking the prospective objections have caused double jeopardy to the deceased employee. 22. I am convinced that the delay in the disbursal of the retirement and pension benefits even after the operation of Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in the back of the perceived faulty admission of the VRS Application and relieving the deceased retiree overlooking the prospective objections have caused double jeopardy to the deceased employee. Therefore, I am of the view that the ends of Justice will be met only if the delay in disbursal of the pension benefits is adequately compensated by way of payment of pecuniary interest. The respondents should not forget the fact that the sweepers play an important role in maintaining the health and hygiene in day to-day activities of life. It is a health hazard and therefore daring. They always have to be respected in the society with folded hands. 23. At the time of retirement, many people plan their pensionary benefits for some important purposes that give meaning to their life. Therefore, the government must always take earnest steps to settle the pensionary benefits to the employees in time. They cannot treat the matter like that of the other cases. Even if the matter lands in litigation, at the least, the government has to proceed on its own or to argue the matter at the earliest for early conclusion. Otherwise, the retired employee will not enjoy the fruits of the pensionary benefits. 24. In the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Comber Srivastva, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 10, the Supreme Court has held that the pensionary benefits are not bounty but property of the employee. Such earned benefit cannot be taken away without complying with due process of law. The Supreme Court went to the extent of observing that withholding of pension during pendency of disciplinary and criminal proceedings, in the absence of specific rules, pension being property, cannot be withheld by the respondents. In the case on hand, the stigma of a pending disciplinary proceeding is also not there against the deceased retiree. 25. It is the fittest case, where, though the petitioner has not sought for any interest, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to award 12% interest to the delayed disbursal of pensionary benefits. For arriving at the quantum of award of interest, this Court garners support from the following judgments:- (1985) 1 SCC 429 , (State of Kerala Vs. For arriving at the quantum of award of interest, this Court garners support from the following judgments:- (1985) 1 SCC 429 , (State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair). (1987) 4 SCC 328 (O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India) (1999) 3 SCC 438 (Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.) 2000 (2) LLJ 253 (Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.) (2001) 6 SCC 591 (Gorakhpur University Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Others) (2006) 6 SCC 455 (Union of India Vs. M.S. Abdulla) 2008 (3) SCC 44 (S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & another) (2009) 3 MLJ 1 (Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. M. Deivasigamani) (2010) 7 MLJ 577 (P. Nagarathna Pandian Vs. Managing Director, TNHB and another) 2011 (2) CWC 533 (N. Subbian Vs. The Commissioner Kumbakonam Municipality) and 2011 (2) CWC 417 (Dr. S. Loganathan Vs. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and others) 26. I am also persuaded by the Order dated 20.06.2017 of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.118 of 2017, that had elaborately discussed the issue of interest on delayed disbursal of pensions in terms of Rule 45(A) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and upheld the applicability of interest even in cases where the delay was due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The alternate plea of restricting the rate of interest to bank rates was also rejected by this Hon’ble Court relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions that had awarded up to 18% interest rate in fit cases. 27. In the case on hand, there is no disciplinary proceeding instituted or pending against the petitioner's mother and her voluntary retirement was accepted bona-fide by the authorities concerned in their own admission. Therefore, the ends of Justice will be met only if the respondents are directed to settle the entire amount due to the deceased Mariammal with 12% interest to the legal heirs of the deceased within the time limit fixed by this Court. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case convince this Court to award 12% interest rate to the petitioner. 28. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case convince this Court to award 12% interest rate to the petitioner. 28. In view of the above, this court directs the respondents to disburse all of the retirement benefits of the deceased employee to her legal heirs by taking into account her entire services from 01.06.1963 to 14.03.1996 that includes 50% of her service in the village Panchayat and the 18 plus years of regular service in the Town Panchayat of Kariapatti, along with the eligible pension from the months of April, 1996 in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Though the petitioner has not sought for any interest for the delay, in view of my discussion, to meet the ends of Justice, this court orders a 12% interest to be calculated and paid on the retirement and pension amounts due to the deceased employee from the date it became due till the date of actual settlement. This Order of disbursal of the entire dues along with interest shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 29. This petition has been pending in this Court for five years. The respondents had only protracted the issue on the plea of ratification of the service rendered by the deceased employee prior to absorbing and regularizing pay in the time scale, for a period of over a decade and a half. Twelve years after the demise of their mother, the legal heirs have not seen the light of the day. Therefore, I direct that this matter shall be listed before this Court for reporting compliance on 30.10.2017.