M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) EMPLOYEE of the state irrigation department. The grievance projected is that the petitioner's husband having died while in service on 23-1-1995, and the petitioner being a widow with two minor children, was immediately faced with a serious financial crisis. She therefore, applied to the authorities for settlement of the terminal benefits of her deceased husband. According to her, despite several requests made to the department, the benefits in question were not made available to her. She even alludes to the fact that on a complaint to the chief engineer, that a direction was issued to settle the necessary dues despite which, she is being sent from department to department and even though seven months have elapsed since the date of death, she has so far not received any of the terminal benefits. Under these circumstances, she has filed the present petition and the only prayer is that the respondents be directed to settle the dues forthwith. ( 2 ) NOTICE had not been given to the respondents, but I directed the learned government Advocate to take notice on behalf of the respondents. There is nothing factual that requires to be gone into, but the learned government Advocate drew my attention to the fact that this being a dispute in relation to the non-payment of service benefits, that the jurisdiction of the trial court is now transferred to the Karnataka administrative tribunal and that consequently, this court ought not to entertain the petition. The learned government Advocate draws my specific attention to Section 15 (l) (c) of the administrative tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as follows:"15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of state administrative tribunals: (1) xxx xxx xxx. (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the state concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation or other body as is controlled or owned by the state government, at the disposal of the state government for such appointment". ( 3 ) THE submission canvassed by the learned government Advocate is that reading Section 15 along with sections 28 and 29 of the Act, not only is there a transfer of jurisdiction to the tribunal in respect of service disputes, but that conversely the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to this class of matters is expressly barred. He therefore, submits that even assuming the petitioner has a grievance, that this court must direct the petitioner to address that grievance to the service tribunal and should refuse to entertain the present petition: ( 4 ) THE question as to whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition will therefore, have to be decided at this stage itself. There is no ambiguity with regard to sections 15, 28 and 29 of the administrative tribunals ACT as also with regard to the fact that the entire class of service disputes are now required to be adjudicated by that authority. The short question is as to whether the present petition presents such a service dispute. The petitioner is not an employee or exemployee of the state government, though I am conscious of the fact that she is the legal heir of such an employee. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the present case save and except the petitioner's charge that the concerned officers are guilty of non-action. There is an unfortunate presumption which prevails in government circles that even terminal benefits can be delayed for any length of time. There is absolutely no justification for any such presumption. In the case of retirement, the date of the retirement is known well in advance. The departments at all levels are overstaffed and under these circumstances, to my mind, there can be no defence whatsoever in cases where terminal benefits are delayed or not paid beyond a reasonable time. In the case of death, where the situation becomes far more difficult for the dependants, the position gets aggravated and to my mind, and delay in settlement of the dues is not only unpardonable, but will have to be looked upon with a very high degree of suspicion by this court. It is an unfortunate fact that when without justification, payments are held up or delayed, that there will be a strong suspicion of the indulgence of the corrupt practice. It is an unfortunate fact that when without justification, payments are held up or delayed, that there will be a strong suspicion of the indulgence of the corrupt practice. It is virtually inhuman to try and indulge in such unfair tactics while dealing with dependants of deceased employees and it is for this reason that I am constrained to mention this aspect of the matter. ( 5 ) THE complexion of the cause of action in the present case has nothing to do with a service dispute. The solitary grievance is that the government employees concerned are dragging their feet and are not making their payments which they are required to make. Such non-action on their part is completely outside the ambit and scope of the definition of a service dispute and therefore, to my mind, the question of referring this matter to the tribunal is uncalled for and unwarranted. In fact, had the petitioner approached the tribunal, the application would probably have been dismissed on the ground that she is not an employee or an ex-employee and furthermore, that this is not a service dispute. I also need to take cognizance of the time factor involved and that a writ petition is an extraordinary expeditious remedy and it is to my mind, a most appropriate remedy in cases of the present type. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position, the objection canvassed by the learned government Advocate is overruled. This court can and will entertain the present petition. ( 7 ) THE record of this case is before the court. The only direction that requires to be given is that the respondents shall, within a period of 30 days from today, compile, compute and pay over to the petitioner the terminal benefits that she is entitled to receive on behalf of her late husband in keeping with the rules in question. The petitioner shall, however, comply with all such formalities that she is required to do so such as the discharge of the receipts etc. , as and when called upon to do so. The learned government Advocate is requested to communicate to the department the directions of this court. ( 8 ) THE petition accordingly succeeds and stands disposed of. ( 9 ) SRI Chidananda Ullal, learned government Advocate ispermitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks. --- *** --- .