JUDGMENT : S. MANU, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2023 in O.A. (EKM) No. 946/2019 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam the State has filed this original petition. 2. The applicant in the O.A. is the respondent herein. He superannuated from service in the cadre of Senior Superintendent on 31.5.2015 from the office of the 3rd respondent. He was sanctioned the provisional pension and DCRG due to him was withheld invoking Rule 3A of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. Reason for withholding the DCRG and sanction of provisional pension was registration of a case by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur unit against four Government employees including the respondent and three others. As revealed from Annexure-A2 the case was registered under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC. 3. The Government employees including the petitioner involved in the case approached this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1607/2016 praying for quashing the FIR lodged against them. Order passed by this Court in the Crl.M.C. is produced with the original application as Annexure-A3. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Crl.M.C. on the basis of submissions made by the learned State Attorney. Submissions made by the learned State Attorney as recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge are extracted hereunder: “It has been submitted by the learned State Attorney that no forgery was committed by the petitioners. It has been further submitted by the learned State Attorney that no amount was recovered from accused Nos.1 to 4. No forged envelope was also recovered from Accused Nos.1 to 4. However, the envelopes with the seal of the Postal Department were found in the almirah of the Joint Regional Transport office. The said covers were allegedly handed over to the office along with the applications by the agents of Driving Schools. The learned State Attorney has submitted no criminal mis-conduct was detected on the side of the petitioners.” 4. Emerging victorious in the attempt to quash the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act from the stage of inception, the respondent submitted Annexure-A4 representation to the Transport Commissioner for release of some payments withheld by the department. By order dated 06.06.2018 produced as Annexure-A5 pensionary benefits were sanctioned to the respondent. No liability certificate for enabling release of gratuity was also issued. By order dated 06.06.2018 produced as Annexure-A5 pensionary benefits were sanctioned to the respondent. No liability certificate for enabling release of gratuity was also issued. By Annexure-A7 gratuity payment order, gratuity was also sanctioned. 5. On 16.8.2018, the respondent submitted Annexure-A8 representation to the Transport Commissioner requesting for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the gratuity amount. By Annexure-A9 the request was rejected. In Annexure-A9 the Transport Commissioner stated inter alia that the pensionary benefits were not disbursed immediately after retirement on account of pendency of vigilance case. 6. Challenging the rejection of the request for interest the respondent approached the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)No. 946/2019. On completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal heard the matter and allowed the O.A. by the impugned order. The learned Tribunal found that Rule 3A of Part III KSR justifies withholding of DCRG only where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under Rule 3 or where a departmental proceeding is continuing under Clause A of the proviso thereto. Taking note of the Explanation (b) under Rule 3 of Part III KSR the learned Tribunal held that the case of the respondent though a vigilance case was registered it was only at the stage of investigation and therefore it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was pending against him. Finding that retention of the DCRG by the Government was not in accordance with law, the learned Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the period from 01.11.2015 to 06.06.2018. 7. The learned Government Pleader Smt.B.Vinitha strenuously contended before us that there was no fault on the part of the Government in disbursing the DCRG in this case. She pointed out that the proceedings against the respondent was quashed by this Court only on 12.1.2018 and representation was submitted by the respondent for disbursing the amounts withheld only on 02.03.2018. She contended that the factum of termination of the criminal proceedings came to the knowledge of the concerned authorities when they received the representation and without any delay the benefits were directed to be granted and no liability certificate was also issued on 06.06.2018. She also pointed out that the gratuity payment order was issued on 10.07.2018. She contended that the factum of termination of the criminal proceedings came to the knowledge of the concerned authorities when they received the representation and without any delay the benefits were directed to be granted and no liability certificate was also issued on 06.06.2018. She also pointed out that the gratuity payment order was issued on 10.07.2018. She therefore urged that the direction issued by the Tribunal to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of DCRG imposes unwarranted financial burden on the Government. She also contended that the same is against public interest. She asserted that the pendency of vigilance proceedings against the respondent was a sufficient reason justifying withholding of DCRG. The learned Government Pleader further contended that no provision in the service rules enables the respondent to raise a claim for interest. She in this context argued that unless there is a legally sustainable claim or in other words infringement of a legal right the respondent is not entitled to seek interest on the amount of gratuity. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Smt.Kala T.Gopi submitted that the denial of DCRG to the respondent was illegal as no judicial proceeding was pending against him. She also pointed out that in the Crl.M.C. filed by the respondent and other officers involved, the submission made by the Government was that the officials were totally innocent. She also pointed out that the FIR itself being quashed, the Government is not at all justified in refusing to pay interest for the period during which the DCRG was withheld. 9. The Government justifies withholding of gratuity relying on Rule 3A(a) of Part III KSR. The language of the said provision makes it explicit that the said provision can be invoked where any departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted under Rule 3 or where a departmental proceeding is continued under clause (a) of the proviso thereto. Hence, pre-condition for invoking the said provision is existence of departmental or judicial proceedings under Rule 3 or continuation of departmental proceedings under clause (a) of the proviso thereto. The case of the respondent, the pensionary benefits were withheld citing registration of a case by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The proceeding had not reached the stage of submitting final report. The case of the respondent, the pensionary benefits were withheld citing registration of a case by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The proceeding had not reached the stage of submitting final report. The order in Crl.M.C.No. 1607/2016 makes it clear that investigation was pending when the Crl.M.C. came up for admission and was disposed on 12.1.2018. Hence, we find that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal in reference to the Explanation (b) under Rule 3 of Part III KSR that the Government was wrong in stating that judicial proceeding was pending against the respondent is perfectly justified. The Explanation is extracted below: “3. xxx xxx Explanation - For the purpose of this rule: (a) xxx (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted: (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made.” 10. Hence the withholding of DCRG for mere registration of FIR by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau was improper and illegal. 11. The next aspect to be considered is the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the respondent has no legal right to claim interest as the department had released the amounts without any unreasonable delay after receipt of the representation seeking the payments. The assertion of the learned Government Pleader is that no provision in the service rules provides support to the claim raised by the respondent. It may be true that a search for such an enabling provision in the KSR or any other Rules applicable would be an exercise in vain. However, by long line of precedents it is clear that 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 decisions of the Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. We find perfect answer to the above said contention in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 the relevant portion from the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “...............If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. We find perfect answer to the above said contention in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 the relevant portion from the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “...............If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Art.14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” Therefore, an employee can claim interest on the strength of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution even if no provision in the statutory rules governing the field enables him to raise the same. We note that the retirement benefits are also protected under Article 300 of the Constitution. 12. It is also well settled that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and property due to the employees on their retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in unmistakable terms that they are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to the employees on their retirement. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 the Supreme Court held that any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement of pension and gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the market rate. 13. It is relevant to note that in the case of employees governed by Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the right to get interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutorily protected by Section 7(3A) of the Act. Under the said provision, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period stipulated under sub-section 3 the employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits. 14. In our view principles of equity also justify payment of interest in cases of this nature. By operation of law, right of an employee to receive DCRG crystallises on retirement. 14. In our view principles of equity also justify payment of interest in cases of this nature. By operation of law, right of an employee to receive DCRG crystallises on retirement. When gratuity is withheld for the reason that any disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending, the Government is deferring enjoyment of the statutory entitlement by the employee till the conclusion of such proceedings. The objective is to recover loss if any suffered by the Government depending upon the outcome of such proceedings. In the end, if the retired employee is absolved in the disciplinary proceedings or acquitted in the criminal proceedings the Government have to pay the entire amount. During the interregnum, it is to be presumed that the Government is holding the amount in trust. The employee is denied the benefit of the amount which is actually due to him. On the other hand, the employer Government can meanwhile utilize the sum of money for its purposes, though it is under obligation to restore the same to the retired employee once he egress blemish less in the departmental or criminal proceedings. Even when this situation is analysed solely on the basis of principles of equity, we are of the view that such restoration without an element of compensation would not do justice to the employee. This is for the reason that a trustee who utilises the amount held in trust for his purposes is liable to restore the same to the beneficiary with an element of compensation usually by way of interest or a part of the profits earned out of utilization by the trustee. Therefore, we find that the claim regarding interest made by the applicant is justified on equitable considerations also. 15. It is very relevant to note in this case that when the Crl.M.C. was considered by this Court the State Attorney who represented the Government made a candid statement before this Court that the 1st respondent and also the other officials had not committed any forgery as alleged. It was also stated that no amounts were recovered from them. The State Attorney further submitted that no criminal misconduct was detected on the side of the employees. Therefore, in the case of the respondent, the Government on an earlier occasion, admitted before this Court that he had not committed any criminal act. It was also stated that no amounts were recovered from them. The State Attorney further submitted that no criminal misconduct was detected on the side of the employees. Therefore, in the case of the respondent, the Government on an earlier occasion, admitted before this Court that he had not committed any criminal act. In other words, the Government realized much earlier that the initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the respondent was totally unfounded. In such a case, definitely, when the retirement benefits withheld on account of pendency of investigation are being restored, the employee is entitled for compensation for delayed payment by way of interest. 16. Regarding the rate of interest, we note that the prayer of the respondent was for granting it at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum in its discretion. In D.D. Tewari. (D) through LRs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, (2014) 8 SCC 894 the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest at the rate of 9% for the amount of pension due and gratuity and further directed that in case of nonpayment of interest in the said rate within six weeks the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is moderate and reasonable. 17. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. O.P. (KAT) is hence dismissed. 18. Since the respondent has been pursuing legal remedies since 2019 we find it proper to direct that the petitioners shall comply with the direction issued by the learned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.