Judgment :- 1. Pension is no longer a payment by way of compassion; and gratuity is not a payment by way of gratis. They are valuable rights, and property, in the hands of the Government servant who had served the State during the best part of his life. Such rights are not ordinarily forfeitable. (See Dayal Saran Sanan v. Shanbhu Nath Mukherjee, (1980)2 SCC. 25). And in the payment of pension, the courts would not tolerate a discriminatory treatment. (See D. S. Nakara and Others v.Union of India, AIR. 1983 SC. 130). 2. A necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues of a Government servant who has retired from service cannot be over-emphasised. to him, the shadows of dusk lengthen into darkness. His necessity is acute; his impatience at the delay is easily understandable. Those who still remain in service, however, are unappreciative of the hardship of the retired man; the green leaves mockingly laugh at the yellow ones fallen on the ground. 3. Even when such hardship is caused and indignity inflicted, it is seldom that the retired person thinks of a litigative fight for the vindication of his rights. The age has its limitations as had been noted by Longfellow: "Youth is lovely, age is lonely; Youth is fiery, age is fresty." 4. The plaintiff in the present case, who retired on 19-5-1973 while serving as Assistant Secretary (Law) in the Sales-Tax Department, commendably enough, fought against the injustice caused to him. His pension and gratuity were ultimately paid only on 14-8-1975, more than two years and three months after the date of retirement. It does not require much argument to hold that the delay in the disbursement of the amounts is culpable and condemnable in the extreme, if there are no intervening justifiable grounds preventing an earlier disbursement of those sums. The plaintiff had by Ext. A2 notice dated 14-6-1974 demanded the payment due to him when payment was not forthcoming, despite the lapse of nearly one year after his retirement. He had also sent lawyer's notices on 8-4-1975 and 9-7-1975 demanding payment and giving the details of his claim which included the interest at the rate of 12 percent from 1-9-1974 till date of payment.' As stated earlier, after protracted proceedings actual payment was effected on 14-8-1975. That was, however, did not include the amount representing the interest as claimed by the plaintiff. That was, however, did not include the amount representing the interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The present suit was, therefore, instituted on 23-9-1975 for the establishment of his claim which mainly comprises of the interest claimed by way of damages for the belated payment of money due to him. The trial Court took the view that there was laches on the part of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate court took a different View. The Government has now come up in second appeal. 5. It may be noted in this connection that the lower appellate court has granted a decree for Rs. 683.44 which represents the liquidated damages for a period of twenty one months, which according to that court, represent the period of unjustified delay caused by the District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam. The costs, allowed were restricted to the amount proportionate to his success. In so holding the court below referred to the provisions contained in R.186 of the Kerala Treasury Code, Volume I. The finding was that there was an unjustified lapse on the part of the Treasury Officer to perform the duty cast on him as enjoined under the above rule. 6. The second appeal has canvassed the correctness of the judgment by posing the following question of law: "Is the lower court correct in interpreting R.186 of the Treasury Code finding that there was no duty cast upon the plaintiff to produce last pay certificate before getting the amount due?" 7. R.186 of the Treasury Code reads as follows: "Pensioners:- A Government servant who retires on a pension is required to produce a last pay certificate before be can draw his pension for the first time. A last pay certificate should therefore be granted to every Government servant who retires on a pension by the Treasury Officer concerned in the case of gazetted officers and the drawing officer in the case of non-gazetted officers. If a non¬gazetted officer is himself the drawing officer his last pay certificate should be counter-signed by his immediate superior gazetted officer. The Accountant-General will direct, when he issues the order for the payment of the pension, that no payment be made until a last pay certificate has been produced at the treasury where the first payment of pension is made. The Accountant-General will direct, when he issues the order for the payment of the pension, that no payment be made until a last pay certificate has been produced at the treasury where the first payment of pension is made. In cases where the application for pension to the Accountant General is made after retirement, the last pay certificate should be submitted along with the application for pension." 8. In the present case it is not disputed that the plaintiff at the time of his retirement was a gazetted officer. The second sentence in the rule does postulate a duty on the part of the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring Government servant a last pay certificate. This is understandable, for a production of the last pay certificate is an indispensable condition for the disbursement of pay and gratuity of the retired Government servant. 9. The evidence in the case clearly established that despite the fact that the petitioner had retired on 19-5-1973 the last pay certificate was issued by the Treasury Officer only on 9-4-1975; a delay of twenty one months is clearly established. There is absolutely no explanation for such delay. The court below took the view that at least by 1st April, 1974, by which time a period of ten months had already elapsed after the retirement, the amount could have been available to the retired person. It further observed: "He had no statutory duty to apply for the last pay certificate. He was not give the last pay certificate by the Treasury Officer for about 21 months with no reason mentioned for the delay. In such circumstances, I am of the view that even though he had claimed the above amount as interest he is entitled to 6% interest on the above amount of Rs. 8,255/-from 1-4-1974 to 31-7-1975 as liquidated damages from the State. 10. I am in entire agreement with the view taken by the court below on the interpretation of R.186 of the Kerala Treasury Code, Volume I. That court was only over-liberal in allowing a ten-month period as a period within which the payment could be effected, without incurring an obligation for payment of interest or damages. There does not appear to be any reason why such payment should be prolonged beyond an outer-limit of three months from the date of retirement. There does not appear to be any reason why such payment should be prolonged beyond an outer-limit of three months from the date of retirement. The plaintiff, however, has acquiesced in the finding of the court below on this aspect. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider whether such a long period is available for the officers to effect the payments due to a retired person. 11. The Treasury Officer, the authority named in the rule, must be alive to the responsibility cast on him under the provisions of the Treasury Code. The retirement of a person is an event which can be known even when a person enters the service. There could not possibly be any difficulty in maintaining appropriate records which would help the Treasury Officer to initiate action sufficiently early, with a view to ensure that the last pay certificate is issued with all reasonable despatch and speed and immediately after the retirement. If the officer delays the certificate beyond a reasonable period which, as stated earlier, cannot normally exceed three months, he does so at his peril. The victim of such harassing delay is entitled to be compensated at least monetarily, there being no efficacious solace for the mental agony suffered by him in the intervening period. The finding regarding liability and the quantum of the amount as found liable is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal. It is well-known that the interest rate has shot up above 12 percent in respect of loans obtained from Governmental institutions or even Nationalised Banks. The plaintiff was justified in claiming damages at the rate of 12 percent per annum for the delayed payment. I decline to interfere with the decree granted by the court below, in the above circumstances. The plaintiff-respondent is also entiled to his costs in the second appeal. 12. I would have directed the decree amount to be realised from the Treasury Officer if he were on the party array. Only the Sub Treasury Officer has been impleaded as the 3rd respondent. The Government is now saddled with a liability for a criminal neglect in the discharge of the duties of the District Treasury Officer. 12. I would have directed the decree amount to be realised from the Treasury Officer if he were on the party array. Only the Sub Treasury Officer has been impleaded as the 3rd respondent. The Government is now saddled with a liability for a criminal neglect in the discharge of the duties of the District Treasury Officer. In a sense, in a welfare State, to impose such a liability on the State for the lapses of the officer, would be "to burden the very tax payers and citizens for whose benefit the wrong doer was being chastised", as observed by the Supreme Court of America in New Port v. Fact Concuts Inc. 69 Law Ed. 616 at 629. 13. In as much as the Treasury Officer is not a party, the court is left with no other course. It is, however, for the Government to consider whether an erring official should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action would perhaps generate in the officials of the State a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they served and a sense of accountability to the public, which they should have, having regard to the position of trust they occupy. 14. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs as indicated above.