prior to the date of retirement itself and had even furnished the details of the stations where he had worked during his tenure. Therefore, there is no justification for having delayed the fixation of liability and thereby, the disbursal of DCRG. It is disheartening and shocking to note that for an alleged liability of Rs.19,973/-, the DCRG of Rs.3,30,000/- was withheld, in spite of the specific procedure prescribed in Rule 116. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M.Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429], pension and other retirement benefits are no longer a bounty to be disbursed according to the whims and fancies of the employer, and on the other hand, is a right accrued on the employee based on the service rendered by him. The Government, which is supposed to be a model employer, should discourage official apathy and thereby save the retired employees from the ignominy of cringing and later litigating for their rightful benefits. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was fully justified in directing payment of interest on the amount of DCRG less the amount of Rs.19,973/fixed as liability. The liability having been regularised, the original petitioners are bound to pay interest on the entire amount of DCRG for the period from 1.10.2006 to 10.2.2008. Interest is also liable to be paid on the amount of Rs.19,973/- from 10.2.2008 till the date of payment. Accepting the contention of the learned
