JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition to the extent of denying the interest on the retirement benefits. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant has submitted that in fact, the appellant would be entitled to interest since he was illegally dismissed from the services on 10.10.1995. It is submitted that the District Education Officer has refused to grant the approval to the dismissal order and hence, the appellant filed an Application No. 119 of 2001 claiming the retirement benefits fixing his pension as well as revision of pay as per 5th Pay Commission. By the judgment dated 17.06.2004, the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) allowed the application and directed the management to revise the salary and pay the arrears of salary from 01.01.1996 till 31.10.2000 and also to pay the provisional pension to the appellant along with all consequential benefits. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Vyas, that the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the Management by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004 and by the interim order dated 25.04.2005, this Court had directed the Management to take all necessary steps in furtherance of finalization of the pension. Further, it is submitted that vide order dated 21.04.2014, this Court called for the Managing Trustee to remain present and it was observed that the pension case with service book was not yet prepared by the Principal and finally in the said order, the learned AGP appearing for the District Education Officer has made a statement, which is recorded by the learned Single Judge that the concerned office shall take necessary steps for the purpose of finalization of pension case on the basis of available records and ultimately, the said writ petition was rejected by the judgment and order dated 15.09.2014/16.09.2014. He has submitted that meanwhile, it is recorded in the said order that provisional pension of the appellant was fixed at Rs.1891/- per month by the order dated 21.05.2003 but without giving any benefits of 5th Pay Commission. He has submitted that meanwhile, it is recorded in the said order that provisional pension of the appellant was fixed at Rs.1891/- per month by the order dated 21.05.2003 but without giving any benefits of 5th Pay Commission. It is submitted that finally, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has recorded that it will be open for the appellant (first respondent) to seek the remedy as may be advised to him for redressal of the subsisting grievance, if any. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas, has further submitted that the appellant had filed an Execution Application No. 4 of 2015 in Application No. 119 of 2001 for implementation and execution of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that it appears that by the order dated 17.02.2016, the Tribunal directed the Management to do the needful with regard to the higher pay-scale and necessary proposal should be sent to the District Education Officer. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas has further submitted that since nothing was done with regard to the compliance of the order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal, he filed captioned writ petition before this Court claiming retirement benefits and the implementation of the order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Management has also instituted a criminal proceeding against the appellant by filing a complaint with Vejalpur Police Station for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 506(1) and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC), on 18.10.1995 however, he has been subsequently acquitted by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2012. Thus, it is submitted that despite the orders passed by this Court, the Management and the State Government did not do anything for fixation and finalization of pension and it is only in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the captioned writ petition, the retirement benefits have been paid in the year 2018. Thus, it is urged that the appellant cannot be made to suffer for inaction of the respondents and hence, he is entitled to interest as prayed by him in the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. M. A. Kharadi, appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the same is appropriately passed. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. M. A. Kharadi, appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the same is appropriately passed. He has submitted that the litigation between the appellant and the management was going on and the same ended in the year 2016 and thus, the appellant is not entitled to any interest. Moreover, he has submitted that the Management has diligently undertaken necessary exercise for finalization of pension and there were inter se communication between the District Education Officer i.e. the State authorities and the Management however, the pension was not paid due to the administrative reasons at the behest of the State authorities. 8. In view of the submissions of the learned advocate Mr.Kharadi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State has submitted that the Management was responsible in delaying the pension papers of the appellant and as and when the State authorities has received the same, appropriate procedure was undertaken and ultimately, pension and retirement benefits were paid to the appellant in the year 2018. 9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. The learned Single Judge has refused to pay the interest on the retirement benefits for the reason that the litigation between the appellant and School Management continued from 2004 onwards to 2016. We are not in agreement with the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for denying interest on retirement benefits to the appellant. 11. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that the appellant was suspended from services vide order dated 10.10.1995 in view of the filing of criminal case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 506(1) and 501 of the IPC, and the same culminated into a criminal case meanwhile, the suspension order was not ratified by the District Education Officer and the School Management thereafter, challenged the said decision of the D.E.O. by filing Application No. 676 of 1995 however, no stay was granted but on the statement made by the Management to the effect that it will pay full regular salary to the appellant by order dated 20.12.1995, the Management was permitted to pass the order of cession of appellant’s attendance in the school on the condition to pay salary from their own funds. 12. 12. Thereafter, the School Management has held the departmental inquiry against the appellant and they proposed the action of dismissal of the appellant however, the District Education Officer vide his order dated 06.03.1997, declined to accord approval. Feeling aggrieved, the Management filed Appeal No. 3 of 1997 however, no interim relief was granted in the said appeal and after hearing the parties by the order dated 27.12.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Management. However, in the meanwhile, on attaining the age of superannuation on 14.10.2000, the appellant retired from office hours on 31.10.2000. 13. Against the decision of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 3 of 1997, the Management preferred Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2002. The said petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 27.02.2002 and against the said judgment, F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2002 was filed by the Management, which was dismissed by the order dated 20.01.2003. 14. It appears that the appellant filed an Application No. 119 of 2001 before the Tribunal claiming the arrears of difference of salary from 01.01.1996 till 31.10.2000, revision of pay and higher pay scale. The Tribunal, by the judgment and order dated 17.06.2004, allowed the said application, which was subject matter of challenge by the Management by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004. By the interim order dated 25.04.2005, this Court directed the Management to take all necessary steps in furtherance of finalization of pension of the respondent No. 1. Thus, this order will clarify that till 25.04.2005, the Management did not do anything with regard to finalization of pension despite the dismissal of F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 482 of 2002 by the order dated 20.01.2003. During the pendency of the writ petition, further interim orders were also passed by this Court on 09.04.2014 and on 21.04.2014, directing the Management to send the proposal for finalization of the pension and it was recorded that the act of the management was in clear defiance of the interim order passed by this Court. Ultimately, the writ petition of the Management being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004 was rejected by the judgment dated 15.09.2014/16.09.2014. 15. The appellant has also filed Execution Application No. 4 of 2015 for implementing the judgment dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 119 of 2001. Ultimately, the writ petition of the Management being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004 was rejected by the judgment dated 15.09.2014/16.09.2014. 15. The appellant has also filed Execution Application No. 4 of 2015 for implementing the judgment dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 119 of 2001. By the interim order dated 17.02.2016, the Tribunal directed the Management and the District Education Officer to grant first higher pay-scale to the applicant and further to take appropriate decision within one month and to forward necessary approval. 16. Since nothing was further done in the execution application, the appellant filed the captioned writ petition claiming retirement benefits and also the benefits from the judgment and order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 119 of 2004. 17. This is how the litigation between the parties have travelled right from the year 2000 till 2016. Ultimately, the appellant was also acquitted from the criminal case, as mentioned hereinabove by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2012. Thus, the Management chose to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant and did not wait for final outcome of the criminal case. The proposal of the dismissal order was also not approved by the District Education Officer till 06.03.1997. The issue with regard to the departmental proceedings and dismissal travelled to this Court and ultimately, the F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 482 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2003. It is interesting to note that the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed at filing stage, and was not registered. This shows the mindset of the Management in pursuing the appeal, and it appears that the same was filed only as a formality. 18. After the rejection of the appeal filed by the Management, the Management was under an obligation to prepare all the pension papers and send it to the office of District Education Officer however, it appears that nothing was done in this regard. It appears that there were inter se communications between the Management and the District Education Officer for finalization and fixation of the pension. It appears that there were inter se communications between the Management and the District Education Officer for finalization and fixation of the pension. The first order, which was passed by this Court with regard to finalization of pension was on 25.04.2005 in Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004, which was filed by the Management challenging the order dated 17.06.2004 of the Tribunal passed in Application No. 119 of 2001, which pertains to the directions relating to the difference of salary from 01.01.1996 till 31.10.2000. Thus, by the interim order dated 25.04.2005, the learned Single Judge had directed the School Management to take necessary steps in furtherance of finalization of pension of respondent No. 1 however, it appears that thereafter also, the inter se communications between the management and District Education Officer continued and he was not paid pension. Further orders were also passed taking very strict view by this Court, as mentioned hereinabove in the said writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004, the same are on 09.04.2014, 21.04.2014, and ultimately, the said writ petition was also dismissed by the order dated 15/16.09.2014. 19. The appellant, who was senior citizen of 80 years of age was constrained to file the captioned writ petition claiming his retirement benefits as well as seeking the compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 17.06.2004. Only after the interim order passed in the captioned writ petition, the appellant was paid the retirement benefits, which are mentioned in paragraph No. 3.7. The same are as under: “(i) Provisional pension of Rs. 1155/- and provisional Gratuity of Rs. 77,000/- was sanctioned on 29.5.2003. (ii) Provisional Gratuity of Rs. 77000/- was paid on 15.9.2003 and remaining amount of Gratuity of Rs. 1,34,994/- was paid on 19.10.2018. (iii) Leave Encashment of Rs. 93004/- was paid on 15.3.2019 (iv) Difference of pay from 1.1.2006 to 31.10.2000 as per 5th Pay Commission of Rs. 1,84,426 was paid on 5.4.2016 (v) Arrears of pension of Rs. 17,95,171/- was paid on 19.10.2018 upon finalization of pension case on 15.9.2018.” 20. All the retirement benefits were required to be paid to the appellant, after the Management failed in its attempt to justify the proposal of dismissal of the appellant from service. The F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2002 of the Management, as mentioned hereinabove, was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2003. All the retirement benefits were required to be paid to the appellant, after the Management failed in its attempt to justify the proposal of dismissal of the appellant from service. The F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2002 of the Management, as mentioned hereinabove, was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2003. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Management and the State authorities ought to have promptly processed the pension papers of the appellant. The appellant reached the age of superannuation on 14.10.2000. The action of dismissal in the year 1997 which was proposed by the Management, was never approved, and he continued in service till he reached the age of superannuation. The litigation which pertained to the revision of pay, salary, etc. cannot be taken into consideration for delaying the retirement benefits. Even after the appellant succeeded in the same, he was not paid those benefits also, and he was constrained to file the captioned writ petition. 21. Since the Management chose to initiate departmental proceedings, did not wait for outcome of the criminal proceedings, the action of the Management and the State authorities are not justified in processing the pension papers after the dismissal of their appeal. However, even after the acquittal of the appellant vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2012 passed in the criminal case, the benefits are not paid. 22. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, in our considered opinion, despite the interim orders passed by this Court, the Management and office of the District Education Officer went on engaging themselves in the inter se communications, which resulted into denial of the retirement benefits. The appellant cannot be denied the legitimate interest on his retirement benefits due to recalcitrant attitude of the Respondents. 23. For fixing the date of entitlement of interest, the most relevant date would be the dismissal/disposal of the F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2002 on 20.01.2003 and also the interim order dated 25.04.2005 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004. 24. Though, the appellant has prayed for 18% interest on the retiral benefits, we find the same on higher side. In our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled to 9% interest on the retirement benefits from the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. However, we may keep buffer of three months, for preparation of pension papers, hence the date comes to 20.04.2003(for convenience fixed as 01.05.2003). In our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled to 9% interest on the retirement benefits from the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. However, we may keep buffer of three months, for preparation of pension papers, hence the date comes to 20.04.2003(for convenience fixed as 01.05.2003). Hence, we direct the State Government to pay 9% interest on retiral benefits from 01.05.2003 till they are actually paid. The interest amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court, failing which the same shall carry further interest of 12% per annum. 25. Since, we have noticed that there were inter se communications between the Management and the District Education Officer with regard to finalization of pension and both are blaming on each other for the delay, it will be apposite that the State Government- Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of interest however, it will open for the State Government to recover the aforesaid amount after holding an inquiry fixing the liability of any officer either from the side of the Management or from the side of the State. 26. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside to the aforesaid extent. In view of the foregoing reasons and analysis, the present appeal is partly allowed.