The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a government servant to timely disbursement of pensionary benefits and the legal principle of payment of interest for delayed payment, especially after exoneration from disciplinary charges.

1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the Agricultural Engineering Department on 112. 1964 and was ultimately working under the 4th respondent. The second respondent, while reorganizing the Horticulture Department in the proceedings dated 211. 1995, ordered redeployment of persons found to be surplus and under the said scheme, the post of Typist was wound up and the third respondent by the proceedings dated 211. 1995, by winding up the post of Typist held by the petitioner at Kodaikanal, redeployed him in the place of one Seralathan, who was working as Typist in Dindigul who, in turn, was redeployed to the second respondent.

2. Even though the petitioner joined at Dindigul on 30.11.1995 under protest, the petitioner was transferred from Dindigul to Chennai in the place of said Seralathan, who was redeployed again to Dindigul by the third respondent on 12. 1995. The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer in O.A.No.3435 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which granted stay on 7. 1996. However, the petitioner was not issued with any work order posting him at Dindigul, in spite of the interim order and the 4th respondent returned the representation of the petitioner on 8. 1996. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in C.A.No.417 of 1996 in O.A.No.3435 of 1996, in which the 4th respondent took a stand that the petitioner was posted in Dindigul, which according to the petitioner, is not correct.

3. Before the petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation which was on 310. 1999, the second respondent passed an order on 29. 1999, directing the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner with direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for absence from duty without leave application from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999, etc. While it is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to join during the said period, the third respondent by order dated 30.9.1999, posted the petitioner as Typist in the 4th respondent Office at Kodaikanal. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Dindigul issued a charge memo on 10. 1999 to the effect that (i) the petitioner failed to join duty at Dindigul as per the orders of his superior dated 26. 1996, and (ii) the petitioner absented himself from duty without leave application from 12. 1995 and therefore, it is in violation of Rules 18(2) and (3) of the Service Conduct Rules.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner who had to retire on superannuation was placed under suspension not allowing him to retire by the second respondent by order dated 310. 1999. The second respondent in the order dated 20.7.2005, after enquiry into the charges framed under rule 17(b), having found that there is no proof to show that the petitioner has disobeyed the orders of superiors, exonerated the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings and directed for payment of pensionary benefits. In the said order, the petitioner was permitted to retire. In the meantime, the contempt application filed by the petitioner in C.A.No.417 of 1996 was closed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 28. 2005 praying for payment of terminal benefits.

5. The 4th respondent, who has revoked the order of termination passed against the petitioner on 210. 1999, has written to the second respondent recommending for early disbursement of terminal benefits to the petitioner. By order dated 111. 2005, the 4th respondent also allowed the petitioner to retire from service. Since the petitioner was not paid the retirement benefits, the petitioner made representation to the second respondent and the 4th respondent on 112. 2005, requesting for payment of terminal benefits and for regularization of the period from 12. 1995 to 30.9.1999. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5328 of 2006 for direction to pay terminal benefits. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 9. 2006 with direction to the second resp