ORDER : N.MALA, J. The writ petition has been instituted to direct the respondents to pay the writ petitioner's superannuation benefits, including LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursement, from the date of his retirement. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a consequential direction to dispose of the e-mail representation dated 18.03.2021. 2. The writ petitioner retired from service as General Manager - Plant at Madras Fertilizers Limited. on 31.10.2014. While so, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai registered a case in RC MA1 2015 A 0038 on 26.08.2015 against the petitioner and others. The case was based on a source of information alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Sections 7 , 12, and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , by the petitioner and others. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.10.2014, and despite the respondents' undertaking to settle the petitioner's LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursements, the same remained unpaid. 3. Meanwhile, the management of the respondent organization appointed a retired High Court Judge as the Disciplinary Enquiry Officer to investigate allegations regarding the purchase of the four instruments, including an air compressor. The enquiry officer submitted his report, finding the petitioner not guilty of the allegations. However, the respondents were not satisfied with the findings. Consequently, the respondents formed an Internal Enquiry committee to enquire into the matter. The said committee recommended that the petitioner's increments be reduced by four years, which resulted in a reduction of the petitioner's benefits. Due to the stress caused by the said decision, the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order cutting four increments. The petitioner thereafter sent a representation to the 1 st respondent on 18.03.2021 seeking payment of his final settlement, including superannuation LIC pension, EL payment, Gratuity and Medical Reimbursement, but the same was rejected on 09.04.2021 by the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent in the aforesaid letter referred to a decision taken in the 311 th Board Meeting on 19.06.2020, for rejecting the petitioner's request. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent filed a detailed counter, replicating the facts in the petitioner's affidavit. The 1 st respondent in the aforesaid letter referred to a decision taken in the 311 th Board Meeting on 19.06.2020, for rejecting the petitioner's request. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent filed a detailed counter, replicating the facts in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondent inter alia, submitted that, pursuant to an amendment in the policy on 21.08.2020, the petitioner's final settlement could be considered only after the conclusion of the CBI case, which was expected to take at least a year. The respondent submitted that the petitioner's claim for immediate final settlement was without any merit, as the outcome of the on going legal proceedings, including the potential conviction, would have a direct bearing on his eligibility for full and final benefits under the revised policy frame work. The respondent therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent's amended policy decision taken in the 311 th Board Meeting held on 19.06.2020, could not be operated retrospectively as there was a six-year delay between the petitioner's retirement on 31.10.2014, and the respondent's decision. The learned counsel on the merits of the case, submitted that the transaction in question did not involve the petitioner, and the respondent's contention to the contrary were erroneous and untenable. The learned counsel further submitted that, pension is property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The right to property though not a fundamental right was nevertheless a constitutional right and therefore, the respondent could not deny his superannuation benefits citing the pendency of the criminal case instituted by the CBI and on a policy decision taken long after the petitioner's superannuation. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had caused significant financial loss to the company through corrupt means. The respondent, being a public sector undertaking dealing with public funds was bound to withhold the final settlement until the criminal proceedings concluded. The learned counsel further submitted that, due to the change in policy, the terminal benefits of the petitioner could not be settled till the conclusion of the CBI case. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed. 7. I have heard both counsels and perused the materials on record. The facts are not disputed. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed. 7. I have heard both counsels and perused the materials on record. The facts are not disputed. The issue is whether the respondents are justified in denying the petitioner his superannuation benefits etc., due to the change in policy effected in the 311 th Board Meeting held on 19.06.2020. 8. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings on certain allegations and charges. A retired Judge of this Court was appointed as the enquiry officer, who submitted his report finding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. However, as the respondents were not satisfied with the report, they formed an internal Enquiry Committee, which recommended imposing of the major punishment of reduction in pay scale for a period of four years. By the said punishment the petitioner's basic pay was reduced from Rs.56070/- to Rs.50340/-. The petitioner had no objection to the punishment imposed on him in the departmental proceedings, which is evident from his failure in challenging the same by way of appeal. The petitioner therefore requested the respondents to settle his superannuation benefits, including LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursements. The said request was rejected citing the amended policy viz., The Madras Fertilizers Limited Service Policy dated 12.08.2020. The said amended policy reads as follows:- “ Clause 4.9.0 Special Procedure in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified under this policy in any one of the following circumstances: 4.9.1 The employee has been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or 4.11.0 Discharge Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, in cases 4.11.1 Where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the grounds of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude in a Court of law. The Competent Authority may remove or dismiss an employee without following the procedure laid down in this policy.” 9. On the basis of the aforesaid policy, the respondents contend that the final settlement can be done only after the conclusion of the CBI cases. The Competent Authority may remove or dismiss an employee without following the procedure laid down in this policy.” 9. On the basis of the aforesaid policy, the respondents contend that the final settlement can be done only after the conclusion of the CBI cases. The facts of the present case as narrated above establish that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and a major punishment of cut of increment for 4 years was imposed. The respondents themselves felt that the petitioner did not deserve the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge. Assuming that the petitioner is convicted in the criminal case, the respondents cannot modify the punishment to discharge or dismissal order solely on the basis of the conviction by the criminal court as the lesser punishment of cut in increment was already imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the respondents having permitted the petitioner to retire from service, the question of imposing punishment of dismissal or discharge at this stage is far fetched. Moreover, the amended policy came into effect on 12.08.2020, long after the petitioner's superannuation on 31.10.2014. Assuming that the respondents have the power to impose the punishment of dismissal or discharge as per the amended policy, the same cannot be given retrospective effect and therefore, viewed from any angle the amended provision does not apply to the petitioner. It is trite in law that executive orders which curtail the constitutional rights cannot be given retrospective effect. Pension is recognised as property within the meaning of Art.300-A of the Constitution and therefore, the policy decision taken in the 311 th Board Meeting cannot have retrospective operation. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. The Courts have time and again held that pension is not a bounty but a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendrakumar Srivatssava [2013(12) SCC 210] 11. In the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of UP reported in 1999(3) SCC 438 , the Hon'ble Supereme Court granted interest itself quantifying the same, for delayed payment of pension. Jitendrakumar Srivatssava [2013(12) SCC 210] 11. In the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of UP reported in 1999(3) SCC 438 , the Hon'ble Supereme Court granted interest itself quantifying the same, for delayed payment of pension. Taking cue from the said judgment, I am inclined to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 12% p.a., for the delayed settlement of the retirement benefits. 12. A direction is therefore issued to the respondents to pay the superannuation benefits, including LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursements, from the date of the petitioner's retirement with interest at 12% per annum within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.