JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) "socialism for the Superannuated" is perhaps a myth or atleast a "concept" limited to jurists and judges of this country. The concept has yet to activate our bureaueracy, particularly of our State of Madhya Pradesh, which perhaps continues to believe that every government servant attains moksha on his retirement and needs nothing to survive like a wordly creature. The present writ petition, filed by a retired and lonely widow praying for pensionary benefits due to her, sufficiently justifies these observations. ( 2. ) THE obvious facts are that the petitioner was working as a gram sevika and retired on superannuation on 31-8-1982 vide orders P-1 and P-2. It is also apparent that she has not been paid any pensionary benefit due to her under rules. She even complains of non-payment of her provident fund money. From the letter dated 20-10-1982 by the Respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 it is clear that he sought directions for preparing her pension papers. It is also clear that the respondent No. 3 in his reply dated 7-12-1982 informed that since the State Government has not taken any decision about service conditions of persons like the petitioner, action on her pension would be taken only after the decision of the State Government. (P-4 ). That is where the matter is still pending and that appears to be the reason why the petitioner has not been paid any pensionary benefit. ( 3. ) IT appears that the petitioner was originally working as a Bal-Sewika in the family and Child Welfare Scheme run by the M. P. State Social Welfare Board since 6-5-1960. It further appears that the said scheme was abolished by the State Government and all Bal Sewikas were absorbed as Gram Sevikas. That is how the services of the petitioner came to be transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and Panchayat. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of her service with madhya Pradesh State Social Welfare Board for purposes of pensionary benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners services were terminated by the said Board and she was given fresh appointment. Indeed the facts speak otherwise. She was absorbed as Gram Sewika and not appointed afresh, indicating thereby that her earlier post was treated as equivalent to her present post. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners services were terminated by the said Board and she was given fresh appointment. Indeed the facts speak otherwise. She was absorbed as Gram Sewika and not appointed afresh, indicating thereby that her earlier post was treated as equivalent to her present post. In this view of the matter, there is apparently no reason why her entire service should not count for pensionary benefits and these benefits should be calculated and paid accordingly. Even if a decision on the question was likely to be delayed, there is no reason why she should not have been paid provisional gratuity and pension as per rules. Indeed it is not understood why a decision on such a small matter should take so long a time. Nothing but the culpable neglect on the part of those responsible for taking decision can be the reason. ( 4. ) IN view of the aforesaid it must be held that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary benefits for her entire service. Pensionary benefits are no longer bounty to be distributed by the State on its employees on their retirement but is a valuable right and property in their hands due to several decisions of this Court and the Supreme court of India. Any struggle of government enployee for these hard-earned dues against a heartless, unsympathetic and culpably negligent bureaucracy must be held to be unequal and efforts made to save the retiree by affordinghim the full protection of judicial process. In Deokinandan vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1560 , the Supreme court in similar circumstances, observed as under :- "we hope and desire that in future the employees who serve the Govt. would not be exposed in the fall of their life to such a costly and unending litigation to claim what is justly due to them on the date on which the bond of service is snapped. " (para 7 ). would not be exposed in the fall of their life to such a costly and unending litigation to claim what is justly due to them on the date on which the bond of service is snapped. " (para 7 ). In State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 , the Supreme Court observed as under : "since the date of retirement of every government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed atleast a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of next month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant cannot be overemphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. " The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 25,000 as penal cost in the case of Deokinandan and was inclined to pay interest at 12% per annum in Padmanabhan. If standards of promptness recommended by the Supreme Court are to be our guide, the only conclusion, in the instant case, would be that the respondents are guilty of arbitrary and culpable delay in not settling the retirement dues of the petitioner. ( 5. ) WHAT should then be the relief to be granted to the petitioner ? The respondents have not even cared to file their return in reply to the rule issued by this court and hence this Court is not in a position to know the exact amount due. In such a situation, this Court can only issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, jointly and severally, to settle and make payment of all retirement dues of the petitioner calculated on the basis of her entire service, within a period of two months from today together with interest on the said amount calculated @ 12% per annum with annual rest w. e. f. 1-11-1982 i. e. with effect from two months after the date of her retirement. ( 6. ( 6. ) THOUGH this court is of the view that it is a case of culpable neglect in discharge of duty by officers concerned, it is not in a position to either name them or suggest any action against them in the absence of necessary material. It should, therefore, be the burden of the State Government to consider whether the officer/officers responsible for this neglect and delay should be directed to compensate the Government for the loss sustained by it on account of payment of interest and costs. This Court is of the view that such an action, if taken by the government, would prompt a sense of duty among the officers in general and thereby ensure their public accountabililty. It may even reflect the concern of the Government for justice and fairness. ( 7. ) THE petition consequently succeeds and is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents in terms of directions in para 5 above. Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition. Counsels fee Rs. 250/- (Two hundred and fifty only ). Petition allowed.