S. Manikumar, J.

1. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent has challenged the order, dated 9. 1995 passed by the District Collector, Periyar District, Erode and prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment of pension, commutation of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, Encashment of Earned leave, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund and pay fixation arrears. The said Original Application was subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 8707 of 2006. On contest, the learned single Judge, placing reliance on a decision in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1999 SC 1212: (1999) 3 SCC 438: (1999) 3 MLJ 29: 1999-I-LLJ-1335, wherein, it has been held that the pension is not a bounty, but right of a retired employee and the Government is obliged to initiate process for payment, according to time schedule, prescribed in the departmental rules, set aside the impugned order made in the writ petition, dated 9. 1995, passed by the District and consequently, held that the first respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the belated payment of on pension, commutation of pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits.

2. Assailing the order made in the writ petition, Mr. A.A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the respondent was not permitted to retire, in view of the disciplinary proceedings, which was set aside only in the year 1992, though he was due to retire on 31. 1987, on attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended that the though there are Government Orders enabling payment of interest on belated of DCRG, interest cannot be awarded in respect of pension, commutation of pension, Encashment of Earned Leave, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund and Pay Fixation arrears. He placed reliance on the second proviso to Rule 45-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu pension Rules.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that an appeal was preferred by the respondent against the order of dismissal from service and final orders were passed only in the year 1992 in G.O. (2D) No. 123, Revenue Department, dated 111. 1992. Inasmuch as the departmental proceeding were pending, the first respondent is not entitled to interest on pension and other benefits. He further submitted that the writ Court has failed to consider that interest can be awarded only on DCRG, in case of delay and not on other retiral benefits. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

.4. Pleadings disclose that the first respondent was due to retire on 31. 1987, on attaining the due to retire on 31. 1987, on attaining the age of superannuation. But, he was not allowed to retire on that day, on account of pending charges. On completion of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service in any by the proceedings of the District Collector, Periyar District, dated 9. 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Madras, which was rejected on 11. 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Government on 212. 1988. Since no orders were passed by the Government, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.943 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras for a direction, directing the Government to pass orders on his appeal. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, dated 12. 1992, the Government, by its order in G.O.(2D) No.123 Revenue Department dated 111. 1992, have set aside the order of dismissal and allowed the petitioner to retire from service. Though the respondent has preferred the statutory appeal in the year 1998, the Government have taken nearly four years to pass orders on the appeal. Though, the Government have passed orders in 1992, exonerating him