JUDGMENT 1. - Harlal Singh petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer in Rural Develop-and Panchayati Raj Department of Rajasthan, from Jaipur Region, Jaipur. He presented a petition in person before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on May 15, 1989, to the effect that he had been trying with the Head of Department (Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj) and the Director of Pension, to get his pension sanctioned, but the same has not been sanctioned to him even after more than five years of his retirement. He has prayed that his retirement pension together with arrears of pension, gratuity, GPF and other dues may be directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum or at such rate as may be considered reasonable. This petition was registered as Civil Writ Petition and notices were served on the respondents. 2. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition, in which, they have submitted that the petitioner himself has delayed the pension matter ash signed the pension papers as required under R. 281 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short, the RSR") on Feb. 8, 88. Without the signed papers, the petitioner's pension case could not be processed and finalised. On receipt of the petitioner's application on 8th Feb., 88, the Pension Department processed the same and allowed the petitioner's pension and gratuity amount vide PPO No. 1-35588/R/Letter No. 5716-18-A, dated 12-6-89 and No. 2 GPO No. 64156/R/Letter No. 5719-2'-A; dated 12-6-89. It is mentioned that the petitioner had joined the State Government as a UDC in Agriculture Department, on 14th Aug., 58. From Agriculture Department, he was transferred to Education Department; and there he worked as Social Education Extension Officer till Jan. 1, 61. Thereafter, he joined the Development Department as Vikas Adhikari, Bhinmal. After Jan. 1, 61, the petitioner has worked in 13 different Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads upto the date of his retirement. The petitioner's service-record was not complete as he had not cared to get his pay fixed at different times. The pay fixation of the petitioner was due right from the year 1966 and all the fixations were got done after the petitioner's retirement. While working at Panchayat Samiti Bamanwas, the petitioner had taken Rs. The petitioner's service-record was not complete as he had not cared to get his pay fixed at different times. The pay fixation of the petitioner was due right from the year 1966 and all the fixations were got done after the petitioner's retirement. While working at Panchayat Samiti Bamanwas, the petitioner had taken Rs. 300/- as TA-Advance in the year 1981-82, but, he did not care to deposit or get adjusted the above advance-amount till the date of his retirement. The petitioner could not get "no-dues certificate" from the concerned Panchayat Samiti as he could not repay or get adjusted the advance TA. Thus, the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay caused in the finalisation of his pension-case. The petitioner was not entitled to any interest on any amount. To the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed a rejoinder on May 21, 90, denying that he was in any way responsible for the delay in submission of his pension-papers. The responsibility of upkeeping service-records upto date and fixation of pay of the petitioner was that of the Head of Department. The adjustment of TA-Advance of Rs. 300/- had already been done by the department from the petitioner's pending TA-Bills (see receipt Annex. P. 25-A). The Director, Pension Department did not send copy of Form P-I (formal application for pension) as required by R. 285, RSR. The petitioner had approached the Competent Authority before his retirement and requested it for processing and preparation of his pension-papers. The petitioner on his own initiative submitted Form P-I, along with set of pension-papers in triplicate, duly completed in all respects, to the Head of Office on Mar, 15, 84. The Principal, Gram Sewak Training Centre, Mandore, asked the petitioner to wait, as his service-book was incomplete. After completing the petitioner's service-book and fixation case, the Head of Office asked the petitioner to sign the pension-papers on Feb. 8, 88, which the petitioner did. The petitioner had repeatedly communicated with the concerned officers and authorities of the department to expedite his delayed pension-case, but, he was told that nothing could be done before the entries in the service-book anil pending fixation matters were completed. The petitioner has produced along with his rejoinder, the complete correspondence that took place in the matter. 3. The petitioner had repeatedly communicated with the concerned officers and authorities of the department to expedite his delayed pension-case, but, he was told that nothing could be done before the entries in the service-book anil pending fixation matters were completed. The petitioner has produced along with his rejoinder, the complete correspondence that took place in the matter. 3. It is clear that it is a case of a Government employee, who retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on Feb. 29, 84, and who was issued the pension and gratuity payment orders by the Director of Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, on June 12, 89. i.e., about 5 years and 4 months after his retirement. What is regretable and of grave concern to this Court is that in order to suppress its own negligence and delay in finalising the pension-case of the petitioner for grant of his pension and gratuity, the respondents have made a false reply and Shri M.S. Yadav, Deputy Commissioner, Development (Adm.-I), Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, has sworn a false affidavit, and the respondents have submitted the same before this Court in order just to show that the petitioner himself was delaying his pension-matter because he had signed the pension-papers, as required under R. 281 of RSR, only on Feb 8, 88. It would presently be shown that this assertion of the respondents and the affidavit in this regard, are quite wrong. The truth, on the other hand, is that as back as on Mar. 15, 84, the petitioner had submitted his application in Form-P I, for grant of superannuation pension, in triplicate, to the Principal, Gram Sewak Training Centre, Mandore, Jodhpur. Asa matter of fact, under 'R 285 of RSR, it is the statutory duty of the Director, Pension Department, in case of every gazetted Government servant, to send to him, copy of Form P-I (form of application for pension) two years in advance of the date on which the Government servant attains the age of superannuation. In the case of non-gazetted servants according to R. 287 of RSR, it is the statutory obligation of every Head of Office' to undertake the work of preparing pension-papers two years before the date of each Government servant due to retire on superannuation. In the case of non-gazetted servants according to R. 287 of RSR, it is the statutory obligation of every Head of Office' to undertake the work of preparing pension-papers two years before the date of each Government servant due to retire on superannuation. It is also provided therein that this work shall not be delayed if the Govt, servant has actually submitted the formal application for pension. In the present case, neither the Director, Pension Department, nor the Head of Office had sent a copy of Form-P-I to the petitioner at any time prior to his retirement what to say of two years in advance of the date of superannuation of the petitioner. It is the petitioner himself who submitted the set of pension-papers in triplicate, on Mar. 15, 84. Receipt of these papers was acknowledged by the Principal, Gram-Sewak' Training Centre Mandor, Jodhpur, on Mar. 29, 84, by Annexure-P. 4. The Principal further mentioned in Annexure-P. 4 that he was unable to take further steps to process and finalise the pension-papers of the petitioner, because, the entries in the service book of the petitioner, were not complete. The varied annexures produced by the petitioner along with his rejoinder, clearly and unmistakably go to show that the entire delay in finalisation of the petitioner's pension-case took place because the Block Development Officers of various Panchayat Samitis in which the petitioner had worked, had rot completed the entries in the service book of the petitioner in time Apart from that, even fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised pay-scales had not been done. His leave-account was also not properly maintained All these five years' delay took place solely on account of these reasons. It would appear from Annexure-5, which is a letter addressed by the Additional District Development Officer, Jaipur, to Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti-Chaksu dated Feb. 7, 84 that the service-book of the petitioner had been sent to the Vikas Adhikari, to make relevant entries into it and to return the same after doing so Similarly, the Additional District Development Officer, Jaipur, had sent a letter dated Feb. 14. 7, 84 that the service-book of the petitioner had been sent to the Vikas Adhikari, to make relevant entries into it and to return the same after doing so Similarly, the Additional District Development Officer, Jaipur, had sent a letter dated Feb. 14. 84, to the Director and Special Secretary, Rural Development and Panchati Raj Department, stating therein that the latter might complete the work of fixation of pay, payment of arrears of pay, verification of services and entries of his leave-account in the service-book, so that, the delay in finalising the pension-case of the petitioner might be avoided. The petitioner right from Jan 6, 83, requested for preparation of his pension-papers as would appear from Annexure-P. 7 and the other annexures produced by the petitioner Further Annexures-P. 11 to P. 21, P. 25-A & B, P. 28 and P. 29 would go to show that the finalisation of pension-case of the petitioner, was unduly delayed for the reasons that entries in the service-book of the petitioner were to be made and completed by the Vikas Adhikaris of Panchayat Samitis-Chaksu, Tijara, Sanganer Sambhar Lake, Bamanwas etc. His fixation of pay was to be made by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, which was made as late as on Nov. 17. 87 by Annexure-25-B. It is also pertinent to note that on Dec. 16, 87, the Director Pension Department, had sent a letter (Annex. P. 2) to the Deputy' Development Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department Jaipur requiring the latter inter alia to show cause as to why delay of 4 years and 9 month had been made in finalisation of the pension-papers of the petitioner In his rent to this letter, the Deputy Development Commissioner sent Annexure P1 dated Mar. 10, 89. wherein, he mentioned that the delay had taken place on account of completing the service-book entries and pay fixation of the petitioner. It is thus entirely wrong for the respondents to have the audacity to plead that the petitioner himself was delaying his pension-matter. One is left simply to wonder, why a person who is entitled to get pension and gratuity would delay the benefits which he has to get, for more that five years. It is thus entirely wrong for the respondents to have the audacity to plead that the petitioner himself was delaying his pension-matter. One is left simply to wonder, why a person who is entitled to get pension and gratuity would delay the benefits which he has to get, for more that five years. The reply of the respondents and the false affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Development (Adm.), Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, are not worth the paper on which they have been typed and this Court deprecates that even in the matter of grant of pension and gratuity to its retiring Government servants, the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries, to their knowledge, put-forward before the highest Court of the State, wrong facts and file false affidavit. It is hoped that in future this sort of practice would be got stopped by the respondents. 4. It is clear from Annexures-R 1 & R 2 that the Pension Payment Order and Gratuity Release Order were issued in favour of the petitioner on June 12, 89. 5. It may further be mentioned that under RSR, it is the statutory duty of the Head of Department or Head of Office, as the case may be, to make entries in the service book, and to keep the same upto date. Similarly, it is the statutory duty of these officials to transfer the service book of an employee to the other Head of Office where the Government employee, during the course of his service, is transferred, so that, the transferee-office may maintain, upkeep and complete the entries in the service book during the period he remains there. Leave-account of a Government servant has also to be maintained by the Head of Office or Head of Department. Similarly, fixation of pay has also to be made by the Head of Department. The Last Pay Certificate has to be issued by the Treasury. None of these things has to be done by a Government employee. For timely finalisation of pension cases, the State Government has prescribed a time-schedule for various processes leading to grant of pension. By that time-schedule, responsibility has been cast on the Head of Office to start the work of preparation of pension-papers two years before date of retirement. None of these things has to be done by a Government employee. For timely finalisation of pension cases, the State Government has prescribed a time-schedule for various processes leading to grant of pension. By that time-schedule, responsibility has been cast on the Head of Office to start the work of preparation of pension-papers two years before date of retirement. It is provided in R. 286 of RSR that a gazetted Government servant should begin to draw pension from the date he retires from service, irrespective of whether pension-papers have been prepared and sent to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, for issue of pension or not. Under R. 285 (3) of RSR. the appointing authority of the administrative department has to communicate the orders sanctioning the pension to the Director, Pension Department, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the intimation from the Director, but in no case, later than the date of retirement of the Government servant. R.301 of RSR states that pension is payable from the date on which the pensioner ceases to be borne on the establishment, or from the date of his application, whichever is latter. A pension is payable monthly on the first date of the following month. Gratuity becames due on the date of retirement itself. 6. It is well-settled that pension and gratuity are well-recognised retiral benefits. It is also well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can't be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ) , D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India ( 1983(1) SCC 305 ) ; and State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair ( AIR 1985 SC 356 ) . Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ) , D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India ( 1983(1) SCC 305 ) ; and State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair ( AIR 1985 SC 356 ) . In the last of the above cases, his Lordship of the Supreme Court, observed as under : "Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but have become under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands, and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate, till actual payment of it. Usually, the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the Last Pay Certificate and 'no liability' certificate from the concerned department, but, both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned department. 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 at least 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 the following month. The necessity for payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized, and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay a penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement." 7. As in the instant case, it has clearly been found that there was culpable delay on the part of the respondents to finalise the pension-matter and payment of gratuity to the petitioner for over 5 years and 4 months, the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioner, on the amount of arrears of pension from Mar. 1, 84 to May 31, 89, to be calculated from May 1, 84 till May 31, 89 at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. 1, 84 to May 31, 89, to be calculated from May 1, 84 till May 31, 89 at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Similarly, the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 15 per cent annum, on the amount of gratuity sanctioned in his favour, at the same rate to be calculated for the period from March 1, 84 till June 12, 89. As already stated, the pension and gratuity have been released to the petitioner after the filing of the writ petition. The only direction, therefore, necessary is with regard to the payment of interest. 8. I, therefore partly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to pay interest @15% per annum on the amount of arrears of pension, which accrued to the petitioner from March 1, 84 till May 31, 89. The calculation of interest amount is to start from May 1, 84 for the period upto May 31, 89. A further writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay to the petitioner, interest on the amount of gratuity, ordered to be released to the petitioner under Annexure-R. 1, at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The interest would be calculated for the period from March 1, 84 till June 12, 89. Since the petition was presented in person by the petitioner to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and cognizance was taken thereupon, there will be no order as to costs.Petition Partly Allowed. *******