ORDER : 1. The petitioner who retired as Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax has filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashment of the order dated 01.03.2021 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity from the date of entitlement of the petitioner to the date of actual payment has been denied. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner while working as Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur was served with charge sheet vide order dated 24.09.2007 and inquiry was initiated against him. During the pendency of the inquiry he was retired after completion of the age of superannuation on 02.11.2011. The amount of gratuity was withheld on account of departmental inquiry and further vide order dated 01.12.2012, 90% of the pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and remaining 10% pension was withheld. The inquiry was completed on 23.03.2017 wherein he was exonerated by the inquiry officer from the charges levelled against him and respondent No. 1 closed the inquiry proceeding on 01.05.2018. Since, the pension and gratuity have been paid belatedly, therefore, he has filed application for payment of interest on the gratuity and pension amount which was rejected vide memo dated 01.03.2021 on the count that there is no provision under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for grant of interest over the belated amount of gratuity and pension. 3. The State has filed their return in which they have stated that the petition is barred by limitation. The petitioner has filed petition after 7 years of his retirement without giving any proper explanation. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court on the count of delay and latches. It is further contended that the petitioner has received the provisional pension and other admissible retiral dues in year 2013 except gratuity without any demur and protest, now he is claiming for grant of interest invoking the Rules 9(4) of the Rules, 1976 as such the petition is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not disclosed any fact what efforts have been made by him for early conclusion of the departmental inquiry. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not disclosed any fact what efforts have been made by him for early conclusion of the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was getting the provisional pension, therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner is after thought and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges and the pension was withheld by the respondents, therefore, he is entitled to get interest on withheld pension and gratuity. He would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “10. The present case is admittedly governed by Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under: “43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement”. 11. From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), following position emerges :- (i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. (ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the department proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending. (iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings. (iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before. 12. (iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings. (iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before. 12. There is also a Proviso to Rule 43(b), which provides that:- “A. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. i. Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. ii Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. iii Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made:- B. Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instated in accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a) and C. The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. It is apparent that the proviso speaks about the institution of proceedings. For initiating proceedings, Rule 43(b) puts some conditions, i.e, Department proceeding as indicated in Rule 43(b), if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty, then it shall not be instituted except:- (a) With the sanction of the Government, - (b) It shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceedings. (c) Such proceedings shall be conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with the proceedings by which dismissal of the services can be made. Thus, in so far as the proviso is concerned that deals with condition for initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation within which such proceedings can be initiated. 13. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. 13. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for withholding of the pension/ gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending.” 5. He would further refer to the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of P.L. Dubey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (decided on 12.08.2014 in Writ Petition (S) No. 5541/2012) wherein Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:- “10. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976 makes it explicit that in the case of a Government servant, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2) a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in Rule 64, as the case may be, shall be sanctioned, and thereafter providing in clause (b) of third proviso that if the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years.” 6. He would further submit that as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1976, if departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution of the inquiry, the entire amount of pension so withheld shall be restored on the expiration of two years. He was charge-sheeted on 24.09.2007 and inquiry has been completed on 23.03.2017 i.e. after 6½ years of retirement wherein he was exonerated, therefore, as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1976 the petitioner should have been paid entire pension after two years from his retirement i.e. on 01.11.2013. The petitioner has preferred representation on 22.09.2014 and 14.09.2017 but the same has not been considered and remaining amount of pension and gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred representation on 22.09.2014 and 14.09.2017 but the same has not been considered and remaining amount of pension and gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.05.2018, the respondent No. 1 has closed the inquiry proceeding and he has been paid the amount of gratuity and difference of 90% of pension in the year 2019 without any interest, therefore, he would pray for release of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and the pension amount. 7. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. He would further submit that in the present facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of Rule 9 (4) of the Rules, 1976 is not applicable, as such petitioner is not entitled to get any interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost satisfaction. 9. Before adverting to the controversy raised in the petition, it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Rules, 1976 which is necessary for adjudicating the case :- “9(4). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost satisfaction. 9. Before adverting to the controversy raised in the petition, it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Rules, 1976 which is necessary for adjudicating the case :- “9(4). of the Rules, 1976 - In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in [Rule 64], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned : [Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] : Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted : Provided also that- (a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year; (b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and (c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43]. 10. 10. From the above facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was chargesheeted in year 2007 and he stood retired on 02.11.2011. Entire pension was not paid to him till he got exonerated from the charges on 01.05.2018. Rule 9(4) provides that if inquiry is not completed within two years from the date of retirement, the entire amount of pension shall be released to the petitioner. The respondents have not filed any document to demonstrate that inquiry proceeding was pending on account of delay tactics adopted by the petitioner to stall the departmental proceeding nor the State has filed any averments in the return to explain why provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1976 has not been complied with by them before withholding of the pension. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava (supra) it is quite vivid that the respondents have no power to withhold the pension after two years and as per judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and considering the provision of Rule 9(4) it is quite vivid that if inquiry is not concluded within two years from the date of retirement of the government servant, the government servant is entitled to get full pension and gratuity. Thus, action of the respondents in not releasing the pension and gratuity is deliberate one on their part. 11. The law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension shall be released to the government servant immediately after his retirement and withholding of the same is also permissible as per the service rules applicable to the government servant. In the present case it is crystal clear that the Rules, 1976 have been violated which has entitled the petitioner to get interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, (2021) 11 SCC 543 has examined this issue and directed for payment of 6% interest on the delayed payment, relevant part of the judgment are extracted below :- “13. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate. 14 We accordingly order and direct that in substitution of the interest rate of 12% per annum which has been awarded by the High Court, the Government CA 399/2021 of Andhra Pradesh shall pay simple interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account of deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days from today. This direction shall, however in the facts and circumstances, be confined to categories 3, 4, 5 and 6 of GOMs No 26 dated 31 March 2020. We clarify that interest shall be paid to all pensioners of the State at the rate of 6% per annum on the deferred portion, for the period of delay. Having regard to the prevailing bank interest, the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court, would need to be and is accordingly reduced.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in case of Dr. Having regard to the prevailing bank interest, the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court, would need to be and is accordingly reduced.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in case of Dr. A. Selvaraj vs. C.B.M. College and Others, Order dated 04.03.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 1698/2022 has deprecated the practice of releasing retiral dues with delay and directed for payment of interest and held as under:- “4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that as there was a delay in making the payment of retirement benefits and settling the dues for which the appellant employee is not at all responsible, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has also observed in the impugned judgment and order that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. However, there is an inter se dispute between the Secretary, Management and the Government as to who is responsible for the delay in making the payment to the appellant and therefore, he has been denied the interest on delayed payment though entitled to. It is to be noted that as such pursuant to the interim order dated 09.08.2021, the Government did conduct an enquiry and fastened the liability on the college and observed that the former Secretary, Shri C.M. Ramaraj was responsible for the delay in disbursal of the terminal benefits to the original writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, subject to the further final order that may be passed by the Government, the College/Management is first liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Government, after hearing the Management and the former Secretary. However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his. 5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, present Appeal Succeeds. However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his. 5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, present Appeal Succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the learned Single Judge denying the interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The Management / Trustees / College are hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to the Appellant, from the date of retirement till the actual payment was made, subject to the final decision that may be taken by the Government on the objections to the enquiry report that may be filed by the former Secretary and/or the College and it will be open for the College / Management / Trustees to recover the same from the person, who, ultimately is held to be responsible for the delay. The payment of interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to be paid strictly within a period of six weeks from today. In the meantime, the Government to pass a final order on the enquiry report after giving an opportunity to the College / Management / former Secretary. It goes without saying that it would be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the said decision before the appropriate forum.” 14. From the above factual and legal position, it is quite vivid that there is no justifiable reason for the respondents to withhold the pension even after two years from the date of retirement coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry vide order dated 01.05.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and withheld pension of 10% which has been released to the petitioner in the year 2019. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay interest of 6% per annum on the amount of gratuity and withheld amount of pension from 01.11.2013 to the date of actual payment made to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay interest of 6% per annum on the amount of gratuity and withheld amount of pension from 01.11.2013 to the date of actual payment made to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent above mentioned. 16. No order as to costs.