The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner is entitled to interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits as per Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and based on various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 28. 2005 and direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to disburse the arrears of leave salary, encashment of earned leave, Surrender leave, leave on private affairs, disbursement of retirement benefits such as DCRG, commuted value of pension, provident fund, special provident fund and pay 18% interest for the belated payment as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 3. 1965; promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 16. 1970; as Executive Engineer in the year 1977; and as Superintendent Engineer in the year 1994. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.1998. He was not allowed to retire by passing an order of suspension on 211. 1998 stating that while he was holding the post of General Manager (Technical) in the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation on deputation, a charge memo was issued on 111. 1998 alleging that he rejected the tender submitted by the Government of India during the process of pre-qualification bid. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 12. 1998 and denied the same. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved. The Housing Board accepted the Enquiry Officers report and passed a resolution on 211. 2003 to drop the charge framed against the petitioner and also resolved to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.11.1998. The Board resolution was sent to the Government for its approval. The Government also granted approval through G.O.(1D)No.164 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14. 2004. The Board by proceedings dated 25. 2004 passed final orders and allowed the petitioner to retire from service from 30.11.1998 and also ordered that the period of suspension is to be treated as duty period.

3. Accordingto the petitioner due to the frivolous charge framed against him, he was denied the terminal benefits from 12. 1998 for about six years and hence he is entitled to get interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits. According to the petitioner following amounts were disbursed to the petitioner even though the same were due as on 30.11.1998.

Particulars Amount Date of disbursement

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------DCRGRs.3,20,067/-8. 2004

Commutation of pension Rs.3,99,164/-8. 2004

Spl.Provident Fund Rs. 10,058/-18. 2004

Provident FundRs.1,23,234/-16. 2004

Surrender of Earned LeaveRs.1,60,784/- 30.11.2004

The said amounts having been paid after about a period of six years, the petitioner has requested to sanction interest for the belated payment, which was rejected by the second respondent through the impugned order. Hence this writ petition.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit by narrating the facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as stated supra. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit is that since the charge was dropped only on 25. 2004, petitioners request for payment of interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits is not maintainable.

5. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.510 Finance (Pension) Department dated 26. 1995 and ordered payment of interest for the belated payment of each retirement benefit. Apart from that even against a charged employee, the charges having been dropped, the Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana) and Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 (Government of T.N. v. Deivasigamani) ordered payment of interest and held that an employee is entitled to get interest on belated payment of pension and other terminal benefits even in the absence of statutory rules under Part III of the C