JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Assailing the Order dated 29.01.2021, passed in W.P. No. 870 of 2021, wherein, the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition, directed the 1st respondent to fix the pension payable to the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits, such as, full pension, retirement gratuity, encashment of Earned Leave and other benefits to the petitioner together with interest @ 12% from the date they become due till the date of payment, the State represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise), preferred the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 2. Originally, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 870 of 2021 to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner in the absence of any valid disciplinary proceedings as on date, and the Charge Memos being quashed by the High Court on 25.09.2019, as illegal, improper and incorrect and violative of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service in the category of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, pending the Charge Memos in TEC.116/2013, 136/2013 and 172/2013 pertaining to one incident in different places of work relating to the year 2012. Since the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed within the time fixed as per the G.O.Ms. No. 679, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 14565 of 2019, 14566 of 2019 and 14567 of 2019 to fix up time limit for conclusion of the proceedings. This Court directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months, failing which the Charge Memos were directed to be quashed. In spite of the same, the respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame fixed by this Court, thereby the Charge Memos were deemed to have been quashed. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a Memo, informing that against the order in W.P. No. 14565/2019, dated 25.09.2019, Writ Appeal is preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur, and the same has been intimated vide Memo dated 27.01.2021, because of which, the learned Government Pleader pleads this Court to dismiss the writ petition, as the Writ Appeal is pending consideration. 5. 5. It is the fact that the Writ Petitioner retired from service as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, and issuance of these three Charge Memos, are not in dispute. The fact that the three Writ Petitions were filed questioning the three Charge Memos were disposed of by learned Single Judge with a direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, in default, the Charge Memos shall stand quashed, is also not in dispute. When once the proceedings could not be completed within a period of three months, as directed, it is deemed that the proceedings against the Writ Petitioner stood closed. That being the position and having regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble apex Court referred to by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petition was allowed, as indicated above. Assailing the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the State. 6. A perusal of the docket order proceedings, dated 20.04.2022 would show the grievance of the appellants is with regard to the rate of interest awarded for the delayed payments. It would be appropriate to extract the said docket order, which is as under: “Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned Additional Advocate General-II, submits that they are aggrieved by the rate of interest awarded for the delayed payments. The learned Single Judge awarded 12% interest on retirement benefits and other benefits. However, he contends that as per the revised Pension Rules, the interest which may be awarded is only 4.5%.” 7. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the Government issued a Memo dated 13.12.2019 requesting the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conclude the enquiry within the stipulated time prescribed fixed by the Hon’ble High Court, but the Secretary has informed that subsequent to the bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court for the State of Telangana vide proceedings dated 30.01.2020 relieved Smt. K. Sujatha, Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad from the additional duties of Chairman and Member of the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Thus, the post of Chairman, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is vacant from 31.01.2020 onwards. Further, the Incharge Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings addressed a letter to Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on 17.02.2020 to take necessary steps for appointment of Chairman for conducting disciplinary proceedings for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Thus, the post of Chairman, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is vacant from 31.01.2020 onwards. Further, the Incharge Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings addressed a letter to Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on 17.02.2020 to take necessary steps for appointment of Chairman for conducting disciplinary proceedings for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. It is stated that the appellants have filed W.A. Nos. 470, 476, 456 of 2021 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court in its Common Order dated 16.09.2021 dismissed the appeals holding as under: “In the instant cases, it is not the case of the appellants that the delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings in view of non-cooperation of the writ petitioners. It is to be noted that there is long delay in the institution of departmental proceedings itself and even after retirement of the writ petitioners from service, no steps are being taken for conclusion of such proceedings. On due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 8. Apart from that, the writ petitioner also filed W.P. No. 870 of 2021, wherein the Court vide its order, dated 29.01.2021 [prior to passing of the said common order dated 16.09.2021] held as under: “Though the learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a memo stating that an appeal is preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur against the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14565/2019, as on date, there is absolutely no stay of operation of the order passed by this Court. Mere filing of appeal by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur would not operate as stay automatically. The locus-standi of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur, is now questioned, as the W.A. No. 36/2021 was already dismissed by this Division Bench of this Court on 27.01.2021. But, this Court cannot decide the locus standi of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur in filing writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, without hearing the Deputy Superintendent of Police in appropriate proceedings. But, this Court cannot decide the locus standi of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Guntur in filing writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, without hearing the Deputy Superintendent of Police in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all these issues in the writ appeal filed before the Division Bench of this Court, if it is registered and the contention of the petitioner is rejected for the present. In the result, the writ petition is allowed granting writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the 1st respondent is directed to fix the pension payable to the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits such as full pension, retirement gratuity, encashment of Earned Leave and other benefits to the petitioner together with interest at 12% from the date they become due till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.” 9. A perusal of the order dated 29.01.2021 would show that 1st respondent therein was directed to fix the pension payable to the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits such as full pension, retirement gratuity, encashment of Earned Leave and other benefits to the petitioner together with interest at 12% from the date they become due. 10. It is now urged by learned Government Pleader that he relied upon a Circular issued by the Finance (Pension-I) Department dated 20.02.2006, wherein, the policy decision was taken to pay interest on delayed payments at 4.5% p.a. for the period beyond three months and upto one year and 5% p.a. beyond one year after the gratuity becomes due. Hence, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the rate of interest awarded is on higher side. The same is opposed by learned counsel for the writ petitioner stating that even subsequent to the issuance of the said G.O. in the year 2006, there are number of judgments passed by the Combined High Court wherein the rate of interest was awarded at 12% p.a. on delayed payments. 11. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that the dispute raised is only with regard to payment of interest on delayed payments. 11. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that the dispute raised is only with regard to payment of interest on delayed payments. It may be true that a Circular was issued in the year 2006 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh fixing the rate of interest @ 4.5% to 5%, but, in an identical situation, a Division Bench of Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in P. Ramachander Chetty vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (3) ALD 558 ordered payment of amount due namely gratuity, commutation of pension etc. with interest at 12% p.a. from the date they fell due for payment till realization. 12. Insofar as this judgment is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. was granted by the Hon’ble Court as bank rate in the year 2001 was on higher side, but in the present scenario the rate of interest paid by banks is only @ 5% to 6% p.a. and as such, awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. would be a higher side. It is no doubt true that the rate of interest paid by the banks on deposits has come down drastically and the interest paid on deposits varies from 4.5% to 7% p.a. depending on the bank and the nature of the deposit. 13. In view of the above observation, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed modifying the order impugned, dated 29.01.2021, passed in W.P. No. 870 of 2021 while reducing the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. on the retirement benefits of the respondent no. 1/petitioner from the date they become due till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.