ORDER K.K. Varma, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by a Government servant to whom permission/sanction was 'accorded' by respondent No. 3 the Director of Public Instructions, M. P., Bhopal, by the order dated 4-12-1981 (Annexure P-2) to retire voluntarily from the post of Lecturer with effect from 1-9-1974. 2. The petitioner has sought suitable writs, orders or directions against the respondents to expedite the issuance of the pension payment order and the order for payment of the death-cum-gratuity and make the payments thereunder at the earliest, and to award her interest thereon @ Rs. 12% per annum and exemplary costs. 3. It is an admitted fact that the Pension Payment Order and the order for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity have not been issued to the petitioner so far. 4. The following facts constituting the entire cause of action leading to the filing of the present petition are not in dispute. Petitioner Smt. Soosy Thomas, who hails from the State of Kerala, was inducted into Government service on the post of an Assistant Teacher on 20-8-1954. In due course of time she was confirmed as an Upper Division Teacher and finally she was promoted as a Lecturer on 29-7-1963. In that capacity, she was transferred from Morena to Sheopurkalan in the District of Morena. She joined at Sheopukalan on 21-9-1971. 5. From 3-11-1971 to 28-2-1975, the petitioner had been applying from time to time for leave on medical grounds and she had not been able to attend to perform her duties. 6. On 6-5-1975, the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement with effect from 1-9-1974. Her application for voluntary retirement was rejected by the State Government stating the ground for the rejection that she had been unauthorisedly absent from 1-5-1974 and, as such, she had not completed 20 years' qualifying service. 7. On 14-4-1976, the petitioner was chargesheeted on the following counts : (1) that she had been continuously absent from duty from 3-11-1971, and (2) she had failed to obey the orders of the State Government to appear for her medical examination before a Medical Board on 23-4-1975. 8. The petitioner did not appear in the ensuing Departmental Inquiry held against her. The Inquiry Officer held that the two charges had been proved in parts. 8. The petitioner did not appear in the ensuing Departmental Inquiry held against her. The Inquiry Officer held that the two charges had been proved in parts. Respondent No. 3, the Director of Public Instructions, M. P., Bhopal, accepted the aforementioned findings, and issued a notice to the petitioner on 22-8-1977 to show cause why she be not dismissed from service. The petitioner, who had in the meantime renewed her plea for voluntary retirement on 16-10-1976 and then on 24-3-1977, showed cause in her reply dated 8-7-1977. The respondent No. 2 passed an order on 14-2-1978 dismissing her from service. 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior, on 18-12-1978. It was registered as M. P. No. 15/1979. The present respondents 1 and 3 contested the petition. On 12-12-1980, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner. The Court directed respondents "to permit the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement from 1-9-1974." 10. On 4-12-1981, the respondent No. 3 passed an order (Annexure P/2) cancelling the order of dismissal dated 14-2-1978 and permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily from Government service with effect from 1-9-1974. In passing, the petitioner and respodents have not said anything in the present writ proceeding what steps had been taken by the petitioner and the present respondent No. 3 in the light of High Court's diections in M.P. No. 15/1979, before the order dated 4-12-1981 (Annexure P/2) was passed by the present respondent No. 3. 11. Non-payment of pension and death-cum-retirement gratutity to the petitioner in the light of the order dated 4-12-1981 (Annexure P-2) has led to the filing of the present petition after the petitioner's memorandum dated 8-2-1986 (Annexure P/8) addressed to the Prime Minister of India had been forwarded for appropriate action to the Cheif Secretary to the Government of M. P., Bhopal, by the Prime Minster's Office vide letter No. 9(3)/86-M.P.-14, dated 27 February 1986, (Annexure P/9). 12. 12. In their common return the respondents have said that the petitioner's applications for leave - the extraordinary leave is the only kind of leave that could be granted to the petitioner - for the periods from 3-7-1968 to 23-12-1968 and from 1-5-1974 to 31-8-1974 have been awaiting the sanction of the State Government. 13. In fact, the respondents' return dated 31-10-1990 sheds no light whatsoever on the causes that have prevented the State Government in sanctioning the extraordinary leave in question. In fact, the lone Annexure(R-l) to the return, a Demi-Official letter sent in July 1990 by the In-Charge Sanchalak of the Sanchalnalaya Pension and Karmachari Kalyan, M. P., Bhopal to the Ayukt, Shikchha Sanchalnalaya Lok Shikchhan, M. P., Bhopal, is to the effect that in case the State Government have granted the extraordinary leave to the Government servant (the petitioner), her Pension case be got prepared on a priority basis and all papers be sent to the Office of the writer of the Demi-Official letter through the Mukhya Lekha Adhikari (Pensions) posted in the Office of the Ayukt, Lok Shikchha Sanchalnalaya. The Demi-Official letter ended with a suggestion for filing a return in the High Court after obtaining an order for the appointment of an Officer-in-Charge for the writ proceeding. 14. In the light of the Demi-Offical letter (R-l) the silence in the return of any explanation for the delay of about 9 years in the processing of the papers pertaining to the petitioner's claims for payment of her pension and her death-cum-retirement gratuity is very eloquent and evokes in us a reaction which we find expressed in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1560 , as follows : "Uttar indifference to the plight of once a colleague, and failure to realise that each employee in a pensionable service must retire and face the same callous indifference permeates the whole episode." 15. In fact, the petitioner's following documents - authored by one respondent or the other - contain unimpeachable internal evidence neither supplemented nor explained away by the respondents of the sporadic and disjointed handling of, and the resultant unconscionable delay in the petitoner's pension case. 16. In fact, the petitioner's following documents - authored by one respondent or the other - contain unimpeachable internal evidence neither supplemented nor explained away by the respondents of the sporadic and disjointed handling of, and the resultant unconscionable delay in the petitoner's pension case. 16. Respondent No. 3's letter No. Istha/2/Da/13/84/632, Bhopal, dated 13-3-1984 (Annexure P/3) to respondent No. 1 apparently activated by respondent No. 4's letter No. Vividh Yochika/15/79/3563, dated 9-3-1984 (referred to in the endorsement under which a copy of Annexure P/3 had been sent to respondent No. 4) sets out 15 periods of time, commencing on 8-7-1969 and ending on 31-8-1974. The actual days, however, come to 1738 on which the petitioner had availed of leave without pay on medical certificates. The letter emphasised the requisite extraordinary leave was not granted to the petitioner, her pension case could not be finalized. The letter referred to the Education Department Memo No. 6061/4929/20-l/60/dated 29-4-1963, suggesting that para 24 of the Memo had delegated powers for the grant of extraordinary leave. Complete leave accounts, a copy of the High Court's order, a copy of the order of retirement of the petitioner, and her service book and personal file were enclosed with the letter. 17. This letter was written two years and about three months after the passing of the retirement order dated 4-12-1981 (Annexure P/2). This delay has not been explained or explained away. 18. Annexure P/4, the Order No. 8/10/84/D-4/20 was issued by the State Government of M. P. (School Education Department) on 6-1-1988. By this order the period of the extraordinary leave granted to the petitioner from 26-9-1971 to 30-4-1974 by the earlier order passed by the State Government on 25-4-1986/8-5-1986 was partially modified by changing the commencement date to 3-11-1971. A copy of this order was endorsed to respondent No. 2 referring to his letter dated 31-10-1985. Another copy of the letter was endorsed to respondent No. 3 referring to his letter dated 25-9-1987. All this shows that the letter dated 13-3-1984 (Annexxure P/3) was disposed of in part on 25-4-1986 and that a lacuna left in that order was filled up by the letter Annexure P/4 issued on 6-1-1988. 19. Another copy of the letter was endorsed to respondent No. 3 referring to his letter dated 25-9-1987. All this shows that the letter dated 13-3-1984 (Annexxure P/3) was disposed of in part on 25-4-1986 and that a lacuna left in that order was filled up by the letter Annexure P/4 issued on 6-1-1988. 19. It appears that under the Pension Vibhagikaran Yojana, 1986, the MUKHYA VARISHTHA LEKHA ADHIKARI (Pension) sent (from the Pension Camp at Gwalior) a letter (Annexure P/5) and the petitioner's pension case to the Joint Director (Pension), Pension Tatha Karmachari Sanchalanalaya, M. P., Bhopal. Annexure P/6 is a note-sheet of respondent No. 3 pointing it out that the State Government had not conveyed the sanction for the grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner for the period between 1-5-1974 to 31-8-1974. In passing, this period appears as item No. 15 in the letter dated 31-3-1984 (Annexure P/3). 20. Annexure P/6 also shows that the State Government had not passed any orders in respect of the grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner in respect of the period 3-7-1968 to 23-12-1968 - a period not mentioned in the letter dated 13-3-1984 (Annexure P/3). This note-sheet was endorsed to Mukhya Lekha Adhikari Pension (presumably on the establishment of respondent No. 5, the Joint Director (Pension) of the Directorate of Pension and Employees' Welfare Department, M. P., Bhopal). This Officer, in turn, made a note dated 30-5-1989 (Annexure P/7). In this note, it was emphasised that unless the petitioner was granted EOL for the two periods (3-7-1968 to 23-12-1968 and 1-5-1974 to 31-8-1974), the petitioner shall not be having 20 years' qualifying service - the minimum entitlement for a Government servant for seeking his voluntary retirement. This note-sheet was marked to the Dy. Secretary (Fin.) but there is no other note underneath this note. Any way, this note also failed to have the desired effect on respondent No. 1. 21. Hence, it is established that there has been an unconscionable delay on the part of the respondents in the matter of the issuance of the Pension Payment Order and the order for payment of the death-cum-gratuity to the petitioner. 22. The only way to compensate the petitioner for this delay is the award of payment of interest on the amounts due to her. 22. The only way to compensate the petitioner for this delay is the award of payment of interest on the amounts due to her. In this connection, the following observations in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 , constitute the binding law : "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 properties 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". 23. In this ruling an award of interest @ Rs. 12/- per annum was considered to be most appropriate. Hence, present petitioner is also entitled to get interest at the aforementioned rate. 24. As to the date from which the petitioner should get interest @ Rs. 12% per annum, the following circumstances have to be borne in the mind. While in the case of the retirement of a Government servant on superannuation, the pension-granting authority has an advance notice of the actual date of retirement on superannuation of its subordinate employee. On the other hand, the decision and the choice of the date for proceeding on voluntary retirement is that of a Government employee in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (See Indra Prakash Bhatnagar v. State of M. P. and Anr., 1985 MPLJ 229 1985 JLJ 504 ). In the case before us, the petitioner's claim to seek voluntary retirement was ancillary or consequential relief to the main relief in her earlier writ petition, viz. the quashing of the order of her dismissal from service. Besides, the petitioner has not averred and proved what steps she had taken to expedite the passing of her retirement order. In view of all these circumstances, it would be appropriate to make the award of interest @ Rs. 12% per annum run from the expiration of 6 months from the date of the passing of the order of retirement (Annexure P/2). 25. In the result, the petition is allowed. In view of all these circumstances, it would be appropriate to make the award of interest @ Rs. 12% per annum run from the expiration of 6 months from the date of the passing of the order of retirement (Annexure P/2). 25. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and to issue and despatch the pension payment order and the order authorising the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner in three months, after making a provision for payment of interest @ Rs. 12% per annum on the arrears of pension and the sum of death-cum-retirement gratuity with effect from 4-6-1982 till the date of the despatch of the authority letters to the petitioner. 26. Respondent No. 1 shall pay the petitioner's costs of this proceeding which is quantified at one thousand rupees.