The petitioner was entitled to interest on the belated payments of retirement benefits, as per the law declared by the Apex Court.

1. The petitioner is a retired Demonstrator of 4th respondent-college. After his retirement, he has furnished all the papers for settlement of retirement benefits vide Annexure-G dated 17-11-1995. The pensionary claim of the petitioner has been sanctioned and vide Annexure-H dated 28-12-1995 the D.C.R.G., commuted pension etc., had been sanctioned.

2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits have been settled after a delay of 615 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 The submission is that the 2nd respondent should have taken action for settlement of the retirement benefits immediately after the retirement of the petitioner.

3. Counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in paragraph 2 thereof are not convincing since the necessary information had been furnished under Annexure-F dated 19-9-1995. The concerned officer should have acted upon that and if the information furnished therein was insufficient, only then he should have called for further information from the 4th respondent. Even though relevant information was available, unnecessarily he has caused delay and hardship to the petitioner in settling the pensionary benefits belatedly.

4. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent to pay interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payments of pensionary benefits. The 2nd respondent has not denied the information furnished by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-F. The petitioner is entitled for interest only at the rate of 9% per annum on the belated payments.

5. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pay interest at 9% per annum to the petitioner on the belated payment of retirement benefits, within two months. The 2nd respondent is at liberty to recover the amount so paid from the officer who caused the delay.