JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. At the outset, the learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioners has submitted that the issue is now confined to the payment of interest on the retiral benefits. She has submitted that the order of the tribunal dated 11.05.2007 directing the respondents to pay the pay-scale of higher secondary teacher from December 1981 was not complied since the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009 was filed by the District Education Officer (D.E.O.) which was rejected. She has also submitted that Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010 was also rejected on 16.11.2011. She has further submitted that despite there being no stay on the judgment of the tribunal, the petitioner, who was in dire need of money, since he was serious ill, was granted his retiral benefits belatedly on 21.04.2015. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal which has been confirmed in Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009 and also in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010 and seeking further direction directing the respondents to pay the interest on the amount that may be payable to the petitioner as per the order of the tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.08.1974. As the benefit of the pay-scale after upgradation as Higher Secondary Teacher from 01.08.1981 was not granted, the petitioner filed an Application No. 56 of 2003 before the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal. Thereafter, the tribunal passed an order dated 11.05.2007 holding that the petitioner should be upgraded as Higher Secondary Teacher from December 1981 and on that basis, he should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 notionally and thereafter, from 01.01.1986, he should be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900. However, the actual benefit is to be given from the date of filing of the application dated 20.03.2003. Immediately after the aforesaid order, the petitioner requested the Commissioner of Schools on 25.05.2007, however, the respondent filed a Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009 before this Court. 1640-2900. However, the actual benefit is to be given from the date of filing of the application dated 20.03.2003. Immediately after the aforesaid order, the petitioner requested the Commissioner of Schools on 25.05.2007, however, the respondent filed a Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009 before this Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite several communications for compliance of the order of the tribunal made by the petitioner, no satisfactory reply was given and therefore, the petitioner had filed an Execution Application No. 4 of 2008 before the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad, against which the State Government filed the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009, which was rejected on 08.02.2010. Thereafter, the order was not complied with and the State Government filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010, which was rejected on 16.11.2011. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of having failed in Letters Patent Appeal filed before Division Bench, the order is not complied with by the State Government. She has submitted that thereafter also, whenever the petitioner requested for the compliance of the order, the respondents advanced one or the other excuse of administrative difficulties. She has also submitted that though the Government failed before the High Court, for the reasons best known to them, the file was not at all processed and the benefit is not paid till today in spite of several representations and requests for the compliance of the order of the tribunal made by the petitioner, for one or other reasons, the respondents sought time before the tribunal. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the D.E.O. vide letter dated 03.05.2012 gave the details to the Commissioner and requested for the compliance of the order. She has submitted that the Commissioner by a letter dated 21.05.2012 directed D.E.O. to fulfill the queries as mentioned in the letter and the D.E.O. complied with the said queries by a letter dated 29.06.2012. She has also submitted that again the Commissioner asked for certain more new documents from the D.E.O., which were sent by letter dated 11.07.2012 and thereafter also, various letters were written by the petitioner and also requests were made to the tribunal to issue directions to the Government. She has also submitted that again the Commissioner asked for certain more new documents from the D.E.O., which were sent by letter dated 11.07.2012 and thereafter also, various letters were written by the petitioner and also requests were made to the tribunal to issue directions to the Government. She has further submitted that as the petitioner has retired from service, deliberately the respondent authorities are not complying with the order of the tribunal. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioner has submitted that the D.E.O. by the letter dated 08.04/05.2013 again sent certain details to the Commissioner, however, no concrete steps were taken by the respondents for compliance of the order. She has submitted that as and when the matter came up before the tribunal, on behalf of the Government officials, only one correspondence letter was produced and on that ground, time was asked for that the matter is pending with the Commissioner for compliance. She has also submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal was also rejected way back on 16.11.2011 and therefore, on a strong request made on behalf of the petitioner, the tribunal by an order dated 06.08.2013 directed the D.E.O. to personally remain present and/or depute his representative to clarify the position as to why the order, which is confirmed by the High Court and the matter has attained the finality. She has further submitted that the petitioner has also requested the Education Department by a letter dated 07.05.2013 for compliance of the order. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities did not comply with the aforesaid orders and blamed each other and shifted the liability and hence, the petitioner, who was suffering from cancer, expired on 25.06.2015. In support of his submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 . 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled any interest since the proceedings were pending before this Court. He has submitted that the order of the tribunal dated 11.05.2007 was challenged by the D.E.O. before this Court and against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010 was filed, which was rejected on 16.11.2011. He has submitted that the order of the tribunal dated 11.05.2007 was challenged by the D.E.O. before this Court and against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010 was filed, which was rejected on 16.11.2011. Thus, he has submitted that no interest amount can be awarded to the petitioner. 9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. It is not in dispute that the tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2007 directed the respondent authorities to pay the pay-scale as Higher Secondary Teacher to the petitioner from December 1981. The same was not complied with since the D.E.O. filed Special Civil Application No. 9950 of 2009 against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010 was filed, which was also rejected on 16.11.2011. It is pertinent to note that there was no stay granted on the order of the tribunal still the same was not complied. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Umiyashanker Bhuleshwar Joshi was suffering from cancer and he passed away on 25.06.2015 during the pendency of the captioned writ petition. After filing of the petition, the respondent paid the following amount: (1) Difference of Salary for the (4 th & 5 th pay commission) period from 20.03.2003 to 31.12.2005 Rs.58,339/- (2) Difference of 6 th pay commission benefit Rs.45,931/- Total amount Rs.1,04,270/- The petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.05.2007 and all the amounts are paid as stated hereinbelow: Heads Amount Pain on 1. Pay difference Rs.1,04,270/- 21.04.2015 2. Difference of leave encashment Rs.32,870/- 21.04.2015 3. Difference of pension paid (Rs.1,24,433+44,500+23,664) Rs.1,92,597/- 03/03/15 Thus, the petitioner, who passed away on 25.06.2015, was paid the amounts, which were due to him on 21.04.2015 and difference of pension was paid on 03.03.2015. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (supra), which read as under: "3. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. 4. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. 4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that: "1. [the] pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment [to the employees]." 7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in hand. 8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed." 12. In the present case, the gross fact is that the petitioner was in dire need of money as he was suffering from cancer and, he passed away on 25.06.2015 waiting for his timely payment of retiral benefits. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed." 12. In the present case, the gross fact is that the petitioner was in dire need of money as he was suffering from cancer and, he passed away on 25.06.2015 waiting for his timely payment of retiral benefits. Since the proceedings ultimately ended on 16.11.2011 when the Division Bench of this Court rejected the Letters Patent Appeal No. 2367 of 2010, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to regular interest of 9% and 3% penal interest for the conduct of the respondents. Thus, it is directed that the respondents shall pay the 12% interest on the amount of Rs. 3,29,737/- from 16.11.2011 till 31.04.2015. The said amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. If the respondents fail to pay the same within one month, then the petitioner shall be further entitled to 15% interest for the delayed period till such amount is paid. The petition succeeds. Rule made absolute.