THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.24377 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) At the request of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal) in O.A.No.3919 of 2007, in which the application filed by the respondents for release of full pension and other retirement benefits, such as, gratuity, commutation etc., together with interest, was allowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondents, while working as Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer respectively, were permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary/criminal cases pending against them and accordingly, they retired from service on 30.04.2003 and 31.01.2003 respectively. Their case is that though six years have elapsed from the date of their retirement, neither show cause notice is issued nor departmental proceedings are initiated against them by the petitioners. Since they denied their pensionary benefits till today though provisional pension was sanctioned, they constrained to file the above said O.A. for the relief specified supra. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., having observed that as the respondents retired from service six years back and without any reasons their retiral benefits were stopped, they are entitled to full pension and also the retirement benefits like gratuity, commutation etc., with simple interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment of pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. Respondents filed counter stating that the petitioners without issuing show cause notice or without initiating disciplinary proceedings against them even after lapse of six years from their retirement, withholding of their pensionary benefits by the petitioners is unjustified and that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A, and the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that further action in the Advisor (QC) cases, proposed against the respondents, was dropped vide memo dated 07.11.2008 and thereafter, their pension proposals were sent to the Accountant General on 19.12.2008 without any delay. He also contended that the interest @18% on the retiral benefits granted by the Tribunal is higher than the prevailing rates. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of full pension and the retirement benefits, such as, gratuity, commutation etc. by the respondents. The dispute urged before us is only with regard to the rate of interest payable on the retiral benefits of the respondents. Since the respondents retired from service in 2003, to put a quietus to the litigation, we advised the learned counsel to arrive at a settlement with regard to the rate of interest payable on the retiral benefits of the respondents. Consequently, the agreed rate of interest of both the counsel is @ 9% per annum. In the circumstances, we direct the petitioners to pay the retiral benefits together with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondents, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:23.02.2010 sj