JUDGMENT The instant writ petition is directed against non-payment and withholding of pension and gratuity since the Superannuation of the petitioner i.e. with effect from 31st December, 1985, and non-grant of selection grade with effect from 1st March, 1974 inspite of recommendation of the District Land and Land Reforms Officers, Malda, for payment made on 10th August, 1989 which is annexure 'H' to the writ petition. 2. To appreciate the scope of the instant writ petition, it is necessary to consider the relevant and material facts which is stated hereinafter :- 3. On 28/29th December, 1955 the petitioner was appointed as Amin. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Peskar and since his retirement on 31st December, 1985 he held post under Maida Collectorate. 4. On 10th February, 1977, the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 31st March, 1977 the Settlement Officer, Maida filed a complaint and on that basis, Criminal case was started. 5. On 17th December, 1980 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maida passed the final order and the petitioner was discharged. 6. On 5th November, 1981 the petitioner moved a writ petition against the order of suspension. 7. On 2nd February, 1982, the Rule was issued being C.R. 370 (W)/82 in connection with the writ petition, against the order of suspension. 8. On 8th December, 1981, the petitioner moved a writ petition challenging the charge-sheet and Departmental proceeding. A Civil order being C.O. No. 15508 (W) of 1981 was passed. 9. On 5th April, 1983, Rule being C.R. 4011 (W) of 1983 was issued in connection with C.O. No. 15508 (W) of 1981 whereby the Departmental proceeding and charge-sheet was challenged. 10. On 15th August, 1984, the departmental proceeding was concluded. He was acquitted from all charges by the then Settlement Officer. It may be noted that due to interim order passed by this Court, final order in the departmental proceeding could not be given effect to. On 24th August, 1984 by the Order of the Court C.R. 370(W) of 1982 and C.R. 4011(W) of 1983 were disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Officer to pass the final order. On 27th August, 1984, the Settlement Officer, Maida passed necessary order directory to give immediate effect to the final order. The period of suspension was treated as period spent on duty. The petitioner submitted joining report. 11. On 27th August, 1984, the Settlement Officer, Maida passed necessary order directory to give immediate effect to the final order. The period of suspension was treated as period spent on duty. The petitioner submitted joining report. 11. On 3rd June, 1985, the order of superannuation was issued with effect from 31st December, 1985. On 20th March, 1985 the petitioner received Memo at the instance of the Governor of West Bengal whereby he was asked to show-cause why his pension, gratuity will not be withheld as a measure of penalty. The petitioner challenged the said order in C.O. 11221 (W) of 1985. 12. On 22nd December, 1988 the C.O. 11221 (W) of 1988 was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to pay all the retirement benefits within three months from 22nd December, 1988. On 29th December, 1988 the Learned Advocate communicated the order of the Court. 13. On 22nd February, 1989 the xerox copy of the certified copy of the order was communicated. 14. On 24th December, 1981 the petitioner made representation with a prayer for payment of all retirement benefits. On 1st July, 1989 and 3rd July, 1989 the petitioner made representations. 15. On 15th July, 1989 the District Land & Land Reforms Officer of Malda forwarded the representations to the Director of Land Records and Survey with recommendation for provisional pension. On 18th August, 1989 the D.L. & L.R.O. Malda recommended the Director of L.R. & S to consider the name of the petitioner for Selection Grade as Peskar. On 14th September, 1989 the petitioner made representation. It is not disputed that one Sailendra Nath Dey Junior to the petitioner was granted the selection grade but the petitioner was deprived of the same. 16. Being aggrieved by non-payment of pension and gratuity since his retirement with effect from 31st December, 1985 and non-grant of selection grade with effect from 1st March, 1974, On 16th January, 1990 the instant writ petition was moved before Monoranjan Mullick, J., as he then was, where upon it was ordered that the respondent No. 4 should release provisional pension so far due, and gratuity within a fortnight. On 2nd May, 1990, an application for contempt was moved for non-compliance with the order dated 16th January, 1990 for payment or provisional pension within a stipulated period. On 2nd May, 1990, an application for contempt was moved for non-compliance with the order dated 16th January, 1990 for payment or provisional pension within a stipulated period. Contempt Rule being No. C.R. 4927(W) of 1990 was issued on 14th September, 1990, in the C.R. No. 4927 (W) of 1990. It was ordered that the provisional pension be paid month by month till the disposal of the writ petition. It was further ordered that the payment would be started within one month from the date. 17. On 11th January, 1991, the opposite party in the aforesaid contempt Rule filed on application for modification of the order dated 14th September, 1990. The petitioner also filed another application for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 14th September, 1990 by not paying the provisional pension month by month. On 7th June, 1991 it was ordered by Monoranjan Mullick, J. that till the disposal of the writ petition the Respondent Contemnor shall have to pay provisional pension in terms of the order passed by the Court on 14th September, 1990. 18. Since the payment of provisional pension was not paid, the contempt application was moved which was assigned to me and came up for hearing on July 18, 1994 when the following order was passed :- "District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Maida, alleged Contemnor respondent is directed to be personally present before the Court on 26.7.94 at 2 P.M. and produce statements of papers relating to payments of provisional pension and gratuity made to the petitioner. Let this matter appear at the top of the List on 26.7.94 at 2 P.M. irrespective of any other matters. Let plain copies of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the Learned Advocate for the parties for communication upon the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda for compliance of the order, on usual undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the order." 19. On July 26, 1994 the said contempt application was disposed of by the following order:- "Pursuant to the order passed by me on July 18, 1994, District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, alleged Contemnor-respondent is personally present before the Court today. He has also produced the statement of accounts relating to provisional pension and gratuity of the petitioners. On July 26, 1994 the said contempt application was disposed of by the following order:- "Pursuant to the order passed by me on July 18, 1994, District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, alleged Contemnor-respondent is personally present before the Court today. He has also produced the statement of accounts relating to provisional pension and gratuity of the petitioners. I am satisfied that the payment has been made in terms of the order of Monoranjan Mullick, J. as be then was dated 7.6.91. Accordingly, there will be no order in this Contempt application and the same is disposed of without any order as to costs. Let the Main writ application appear for hearing on 5.9.94." 20. It appears from the facts on record as mentioned hereinbefore that the respondents attempted to withhold the retirement benefits i.e. pension and gratuity by initialing proceeding under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 read with West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971. The said proceeding, however, has been set aside by the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1988 passed by Mahitosh Majumdar, J. as he then was in C.O. No. 11221(W) of 1985, and as such there cannot be any impediment in granting pension and gratuity in accordance with law but the authority concerned with some motive ulterior withheld the same which is bad in law. 21. It further appears that on 15th July, 1989, the District Land & Land Reforms Officer forwarded the representations to the Director of Land Records and Survey with recommendation for provisional pension. On 18th August, 1989 the District Land Reforms Officer also recommended the name of the petitioner for selection Grade as Peskar but no action was taken. 22. It is well-settled that the right to receive pension and gratuity is not a bounty but a statutory right inasmuch as it is a right to property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution and as such, the authority cannot deprive the petitioner of such legal right. 23. In this connection, I may refer to the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 at page 1420. 23. In this connection, I may refer to the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 at page 1420. In paragraph 34 of the said judgment at Page 1420 the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order of State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pensions Act (Act 23 of 1971) there is a bar against a Civil Court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law." 24. In the case of (2) Stale of Kerala and Others v. M. Padmanobhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 the Supreme Court held that Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are 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. The liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate commences on the expiry to two months from the date of retirement. 25. The claim for interest made by the Government Servant who was paid his pension and gratuity more than two years and three months after his retirement due to non-production of Last Pay Certificate by the retiree, it was held, was rightly granted as the delay was due to lapse on the part of the Treasury Officer enjoined to issue the certificate under Rule 186 of Treasury Code (Bom). 26. 26. The Supreme Court was inclined to grant 12% interest to the retired employee but did not do as the employee had acquiesced in his claim being decreed at six per cent. 27. In this connection the judgment and decision in the case of (3) Jitendranath Mukherjee v. Stale of West Bengal reported in 1993(1) CLJ 325 may also be taken note of. The same principle has been followed by me and it was held that since it is the settled law that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are 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. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner succeeds in this writ petition. There will be an order directing the respondents to release pension and gratuity of the petitioner since his retirement on 31st December, 1985, with all arrears by paying interest at the rate of six percent immediately as the petitioner has retired with effect from 31st December, 1985. There will be a further order directing the respondents to take immediate step for grant of and payment of Selection Grade pay to the petitioner with effect from 1st March, 1974 pursuant to the recommendation of the D.L.L.R.O., Malda by his Memo dated 10th August, 1989. The respondents are also further directed to make such payment and to implement the order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.