( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Cost analyst in the respondent-Port Trust in the year 1974. He was promoted as Accounts officer in 1980, Deputy Chief Accounts officer in 1982 and as Deputy Financial advisor and Chief Accounts Officer in the year 1988. While, the petitioner was working as Deputy Financial Advisor and chief Accounts Officer, he was served with a memo dated 25-1-1997 calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him stating that he acted in connivance with the contractor in order to unduly award the subject work in his favour taking advantage of the chairman s Instructions in a twisted manner even by compromising the interests of the Port Trust. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1-2-1987 denying the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, charge memo was issued on 27-9-1997 under Regulation 12 of the Visakhapatnam port Employees (Classification, Control and appeal) Regulations, 1968 (for short "the regulations") which deals with imposition of minor penalties. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-memo on 8-10-1997. As the respondent-Port Trust has not taken any decision, the petitioner was permitted to retire on 30-11-1997 as Deputy financial Advisor and Chief Accounts officer. Pending finalisation of minor penalties on retirement, the petitioner s pension was not settled due to the reason that the charge for minor penalty is pending on the date of retirement. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 9-12-1997 requesting to fix the pension and release the same but the same was not fixed and released. The petitioner made a representation oh 10-12-1997 with a request to give benefit of the resolution passed by the Board of the port Trust dated 23-3-1997 wherein the board adopted Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 (for short "the Pension Rules) which provides that those who are having special qualifications are entitled to the benefit of added years of service for calculation of pension. But by letter dated 6-5-98 provisional pension was sanctioned without giving the benefit of Rule 30 of pension Rules. Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ended on 31-3-1998 by imposing the penalty of Censure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority against the punishment of censure imposed oh him. Even after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the pension of the petitioner was not fixed but the authorities by their letter dated 28-9-1998 again sanctioned only the provisional pension. The petitioner refused to receive the same and filed the present writ petition alleging mala fides against the third respondent. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining as Cost analyst, he passed Intermediate examination of ICWAI of Calcutta and in the qualification prescribed for the same, it is also mentioned that a candidate should be a graduate and have passed Intermediate examination of the Institute of Cost and works Accounts of India or UK and should have one year experience in cosfmg after passing Intermediate examination. In view of the same, the petitioner who acquired the said qualification as per Rule 30 of Pension rules is entitled to the weightage of added service in view of acquiring special qualification. And after adding the same, pension shall be fixed accordingly. Mere pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for minor penalities is not a bar for releasing of the pension after adding service but the third respondent to harass the petitioner has sanctioned only provisional pension. Therefore, he is entitled to the pension with interest with effect from the date of retirement till the date of payment of such pension and damages for the delayed payment.

( 2 ) THE respondent-Port Trust filed a counter stating that the petitioner was allowed to retire on 30-11-97 subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending a