JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J. Common arguments were advanced in these three matters. All these three writ appeal arise out of an order passed in W.P.No.13584 of 2021 dated 20.09.2022. 2. W.A.No.26 of 2023 is filed by the Agricultural Market Committee which is respondent No.3 in the writ petition against the above order. 3. W.A.No.1000 of 2022 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, who is the respondent No.1 in the said order. 4. W.A.No.952 of 2022 is filed by the writ petitioner questioning the award of interest by the learned single Judge at 9% instead of 14% in the said order. 5. This Court has heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri C.Sumon for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri B.Prakasam, learned standing counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee. 6. The facts in this case are not strictly in dispute. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on the delayed payment of his retirement benefits. 7. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel pointed out that just on the verge of writ petitioner’s retirement, two charge memos were issued to him on 22.11.2016 and 29.11.2016. His date of superannuation was 31.12.2016. After the matters were examined, both the charge memos were ultimately dropped. One charge memo was dropped on 12.05.2019 by issuing a memo and the 2nd charge was dropped on 28.01.2021. Thereafter, a total sum of Rs.42,45,909/- was paid to the writ petitioner on 23.02.2021. Claiming interest for the delayed payment, the writ petition was filed. The matter was heard and the writ petition was allowed with interest at 9% per annum on all the amounts due. Questioning the said judgment, W.A.No.26 of 2023 and W.A.No.1000 of 2022 are filed by the Agricultural Market Committee and the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively. Questioning the reduced interest awarded, the writ petitioner has filed W.A.No.952 of 2022. 8. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued the matter at length and set out all the facts pointing out that the writ petitioner was victimized at every stage and that he had to fight a long legal battle to get his legitimate dues. In the present case, he points out that both the charges which were given on the verge of his retirement were finally dropped by the Government itself. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest. In the present case, he points out that both the charges which were given on the verge of his retirement were finally dropped by the Government itself. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest. A small booklet is filed with case law, which are as follows: 1. Deokindandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 2. State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356 3. Sk.Dua v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCC 44 4. Bal Kishore Mody v. Arun Kumar Singh, 2001 (10) SCC 174 5. D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others, 2014 (8) SCC 894 6. Union of India v. M.S.Abdulla, 2006 (6) SCC 455 7. Ex.Capt. R.S.Dhull v. State of Haryana and others, 1998 (4) SCC 379 9. Learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition, but he submits that he should have ordered interest at 14% and therefore he prays that his appeal should be allowed while dismissing the writ appeals filed by the State and the Agricultural Market Committee. 10. Sri C.Sumon, learned counsel, argues in line with what is stated in the counter. He points out that the mere fact that the charges were dropped would not entitled the writ petitioner to claim interest from the date of his retirement. It is his contention that when allegations are made, the same have to be investigated and thereafter final decisions have to be taken. Since it is the Government and the machinery works in its own pace, after considering all the aspects final decisions were taken and the petitioner was exonerated. He also points out that pendency of various charges before the Commissioner of enquiries etc., is not denied and therefore it is clear that after examination only, the final conclusions were reached. He also points out that the amounts were paid immediately after decision was taken to drop the proceeding. He also relies upon the A.P.Pension Rules to argue that the petitioner did not submit his pension forms 18 months in advance before the date of retirement only to process the same. He also points out that the amounts were paid immediately after decision was taken to drop the proceeding. He also relies upon the A.P.Pension Rules to argue that the petitioner did not submit his pension forms 18 months in advance before the date of retirement only to process the same. Thereafter, he also relies upon Rule 58 and Sub-rule 46(1)(9) of A.P. Pension Rules, which are reproduced in the Order and states that the interest if any can only be payable from the date of the conclusion of the final order and not from the date of retirement. Alternatively, without prejudice to any of his contentions, he also submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the date of disposal of the first writ petition in 28.08.2019 only and not from an early date. The interest awarded cannot exceed 6% according to the learned counsel. 11. Sri Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Agricultural Market Committee also argues on similar lines. 12. This Court notices that one set of charges were actually dropped on 29.10.2018 by the Commissioner of Enquiries, (Charges under G.O.Rt.No.874), but the formal memo dropping the charges was issued on 12.05.2019. 13. As far as the second charge in G.O.Rt.No.889 is concerned, since the enquiry was not completed, the petitioner approached the High Court which passed an order in W.P.No.12430 of 2019 setting a time frame for dropping the proceedings while holding that if the enquiry is not completed, the charges shall be deemed to be dropped. They were finally dropped on 29.06.2020 by the Commissioner of Enquiry and a formal proceeding dated 28.01.2021 was issued by the Government. 14. These are the facts which are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a final lump sum payment was made to the petitioner on 23.02.2021. The claim now lodged in the writ petition is for interest from 01.01.2017 till 23.02.2021. 15. This Court also notices that the petitioner at every stage had to file a legal battle to vindicate his rights. He filed O.A.No.2861 of 2017 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for finalization of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.01.2018 directed the departments to conclude the enquiry within six months. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.12430 of 2019 for a declaration that the articles of charges as illegal, arbitrary and to drop proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay. He filed O.A.No.2861 of 2017 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for finalization of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.01.2018 directed the departments to conclude the enquiry within six months. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.12430 of 2019 for a declaration that the articles of charges as illegal, arbitrary and to drop proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay. A learned single Judge passed orders in W.P.No.12430 of 2019 directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within four months, failing which the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped. The petitioner also had to file W.P.No.2973 of 2020 questioning the inaction of the respondents in payment of his pension and retirement benefits despite the order of the Court in W.P.No.12430 of 2019. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.02.2020 giving a period of two weeks to the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. He also filed W.P.No.7077 of 2019 questioning another order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2120 of 2018. This writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench and the order of the Tribunal denying interest has been set aside. The earned leave, increment arrears etc., which were paid without interest leading to this case. The Division Bench directed that the petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum. In addition, this Court notices that at every stage, the petitioner was making representations and seeking redressal. 16. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner includes the following: (a) Deokindandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1) supra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities. It is clearly held that pension is not a bounty paid at the said will of the Government to an employee. (b) In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed payment of gratuity with interest on current market rate. (c) In Bal Kishore Mody v. Arun Kumar Singh (4 supra), interest was ordered at 15%. (d) In D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others (5) supra, interest was awarded at 9% on delayed pension and gratuity. It is also held that if the amount is not paid within six weeks, the same shall carry interest at 18%. (d) In D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others (5) supra, interest was awarded at 9% on delayed pension and gratuity. It is also held that if the amount is not paid within six weeks, the same shall carry interest at 18%. (e) In Union of India v. M.S.Abdulla (6) supra, interest was awarded at 12% on the retirement benefits. (f) In Ex.Capt. R.S.Dhull v. State of Haryana and others (7) Supra, interest was awarded at 12% per annum. It was also held in Sk. Dua v. State of Haryana (3 supra) that in case, rules do not provide for payment of interest also, Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India permit the grant of interest. The law therefore is very clear that for delayed payment of gratuity etc., interest is payable. In addition, section 7(3) (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, also permits the payment of interest from the date on which the gratuity is payable, at a rate notified by the Central Government. It appears that the Central Government has also notified that interest is payable at 10%. 17. In view of the particular legal position and the facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief of grant of interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court over a period of time and in a number of leading judgments, some of which are cited above, has clearly directed payment of interest on all the delayed payments. Petitioner has claimed interest at 14%. Learned single Judge has awarded interest at 9% on all the benefits from 31.01.2017 till the date of payment. 18. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the said order except as in so far mentioned with regard to the rate of interest. The protracted legal battle fought by the writ petitioner is visible. At every stage, he had to knock on the doors of the Court or a Tribunal to get redressal. Despite orders being passed, amounts were not paid with the promptitude that this particular case warrants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the writ appeals filed by the Agricultural Market Committee and State namely, W.A.No.26 of 2023 and W.A.No.1000 of 2022 have to be dismissed. W.A.No.952 of 2022 is allowed. Despite orders being passed, amounts were not paid with the promptitude that this particular case warrants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the writ appeals filed by the Agricultural Market Committee and State namely, W.A.No.26 of 2023 and W.A.No.1000 of 2022 have to be dismissed. W.A.No.952 of 2022 is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to interest as this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to delay the payment of interest beyond 30.01.2017 which is also one month after his superannuation. This period of one month has been given by the learned single Judge. As far as rate of interest is concerned, this Court notices that central Government has issued a notification on 01.10.1987 under the Payment of Gratuity Act itself, specifying 10% as the rate of interest payable for the time being by the employer to the employee when the gratuity is not paid within the time. This notification is published in the gazette of India on 01.10.2019. 19. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner also shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was awarding interest at various rates depending on facts of each case. This varies between 12% to 15%. In Padmanabhan’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that it could not be unreasonable to pay penal interest on the dues at the current market rate on the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. In the case of D.D.Tewari (5 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 8 that interest is payable at 9% and if the amount is not paid within six weeks, the same shall carry interest at 18%. 20. Therefore, in view of the above law, this Court is of the opinion that since the last notification that this Court could lay its hand on is dated 01.10.1987, the interest of justice would be met if the rate of interest awarded by the learned single Judge is modified from 9% to 12% per annum. 21. Therefore, while dismissing W.A.No.26 of 2023 and 1000 of 2022, W.A.No.952 of 2022 is allowed in part modifying the claim with interest at 12% per annum instead of 9%. The petitioner is entitled to interest on all the amounts that are claimed at 12% from 30.01.2017 till the date of actual payment. 21. Therefore, while dismissing W.A.No.26 of 2023 and 1000 of 2022, W.A.No.952 of 2022 is allowed in part modifying the claim with interest at 12% per annum instead of 9%. The petitioner is entitled to interest on all the amounts that are claimed at 12% from 30.01.2017 till the date of actual payment. The said rate of interest is also payable in the peculiar circumstances of the case not only on the pensionery benefits, gratuity etc., but also on the difference of salary amount. In view of the legal battle, the petitioner had to fight for a vindication of his stand/name. 22. For all the above mentioned reasons, the writ appeal Nos.26 of 2023 and 1000 of 2022 are dismissed and W.A.No.952 of 2022 is allowed in part. Interest is awarded at 12% per annum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.