The writ petitioner at the relevant time was serving as the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. He was suspended with effect from 14.1.1982 to 4.2. 1987. Consequent upon, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner with effect from 4.2.1987. Aggrieved at the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred a writ before this Court, registered as Civil Rule No. 252 of 1987 (198 of 1988). Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 4.2.92 in terms of the following order in paragraph 6 of its judgment : "For the foregoing reasons, the disciplinary proceeding and the penalty imposed are quashed, and the petitioner shall not be entitled to his pay and allowances from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of his superannuation. However, the period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of superannuation will be deemed to be on duty for all purposes including pensionary benefits but excluding pay as said above." 2. I have heard Mr. Chonjon Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Irabot Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate. 3. It appears from Annexure A/ 11 that consequent upon the order dated 14.2.92 passed by this Court, the third respondent passed an order dated 20th April, 1992 that the period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of superannuation ie with effect from 4.2.87 to 31.1.88 shall be deemed to be on duty for all purposes including pensionary benefit but excluding pay in respect of the petitioner. 4. The sole grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that although the petitioner has been retired on superannuation from service as far as back in January, 1988, no pension and gratuity has been settled, in favour of the petitioner till today. 5. From Annexure A/14 of the writ petition, it appears that in order to finalise the pensionary and gratuity of the writ petitioner, the Accounts Officer of the Accountant General has written a letter to the third respondent by its letter dated 18.9.92 to clarify the position as to the period of suspension from 14.1.82 to 4.2.87. By another letter dated 29.10.92 vide Annexure A/18, reminder was issued referring to the earlier letter dated 18.9.92. By another letter dated 29.10.92 vide Annexure A/18, reminder was issued referring to the earlier letter dated 18.9.92. However, no steps appears to have been taken by the third respondent till today thereby delaying finalisation of the pension and gratuity in respect of the petitioner. 6. By now, it is well settled principle by a catena of decision of the Apex Court that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become 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 (See State of Kerala & others vs. VM Padmanadhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 ). In view of the decision of this Court rendered on 14 2.92,1 do not see any difficulty why the third respondent makes inordinate delay in replying to the letters vide Annexures A/14 and A/18. If any difficulty arises, the respondent Government is advised to resort to the Govt. of India memorandum dated 3rd December, 1985 with regard to the application of FR 54B. 7. In view of what has been stated above, I now direct the respondent Government to finalise the pension and gratuity of the writ petitioner within a period of 3 months from today. The pensionary benefits and gratuity in respect of the petitioner shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date it is due till the pension and gratuity of the petitiner is finalised and paid under Rule 68 of the Central Services and Pension Rules, 1972. With these observations and direction, petition is allowed. No order as to costs.