Retirement benefits must be extended within a reasonable time, and in case of delay, the employee is entitled to interest. The court also cited legal provisions under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19, and 21.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge dated 27.09.2010 made in W.P. No: 12350 of 2009 in and by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to 18% interest on the principal and seeking to set aside the same.

2. The appellant, Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, has assailed the order of the writ Court in fixing the interest at 18% on the delayed payment of pension by contending that it is very high, exorbitant and is against the principles and guidelines issued with regard to fixation of interest. He also raised a ground that granting of interest on the principal amount, in the absence of any statutory rules or administrative guidelines, is unsustainable and as per the bye-laws of the respondent passing of Account Test for subordinate officers Part I and District Officers manual Examination are pre-requisite qualification test for the post of Assistant and therefore, the promotion given to the Assistant as Section Manager based on the seniority only upto the year 2000 and for those who were promoted on or after the date of resolution, passing of Account Test for subordinate officers Part I and District Officers Manual Examination have been prescribed as a pre-requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant and that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service subject to ratification of Government exempting the petitioner from passing the District Officers Manual Examination and accordingly, the order was issued on the date of her retirement and therefore, there is no delay on the part of the appellant in granting the pensionary benefits and thus, the learned single Judge is not right in holding so and thereby directing the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% and hence, this writ appeal.

3. The case of the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, before the learned single Judge was that she joined the Corporation of Chennai on 26.05.1967; served for nearly 38 years and retired from service on 31.08.2005. She claims that she was awarded with Indira Vikas Patra of Rs. 500/- for the sincere service rendered by her to the respondent Corporation. It was her case that she was promoted as Assistant on 04.11.1982; there was no condition stipulated by the Department during that time that she should complete "District Officers Manual examination" and she was also promoted as Manager on 16.02.1996 and Superintendent on 31.07.1997 and she reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2005. The retirement was allowed subject to getting a relaxation from the 1strespondent for not passing the "District Manual Officers' Examination" and therefore, she was granted only provisional pension and her Death Cum Retirement Gratuite (D.C.R.G.) was paid partly. According to the writ petitioner, though she was regularised from 14.01.2003, she was paid pension only in the post of Superintendent. It was her contention that while similarly placed persons were allowed to retire without imposing any such condition, only in her case a condition was imposed thereby curtailing her pensionary benefits. She made repeated representations to the respondents 1 and 2. Since there was no response, she was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. No: 5765 of 2008 seeking for a direction to disburse the full pension and the retirement benefits along with 18% interest thereon for the delay caused by the department. The said writ petition came be to be disposed of on 27.03.2008 with a direction to the appellant herein to consider petitioner's representation dated 22.10.2007 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time limit. After the receipt of the copy of the said order on 20.10.2008, petitioner was paid with a sum of Rs.3,16,771/-. However, she submitted a representation on 05.01.2009 to the appellant Corporation seeking interest for the delayed payment. Since there was no respons