JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal (Writ) is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of 27.1.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4457/1993. 2. The petitioner Dr. R.I. Mathur had been working us a Professor of Radio Therapy in the Medical Colleges at Jaipur, Ajmer, Udaipur and Jodhpur and after rendering service of 27 years, had sought voluntary retirement on 15.12.1997. At the time of seeking such voluntary retirement he was posted at .Jodhpur in Dr. Sampuranand Medical College. Despite his having been retired. he had not been paid the Pension, Gratuity, Government Provident Fund Amount and State Insurance refund, After meeting with failures of getting any response. when he had tiled number of representations and reminders. and after having issued a, Notice for Demand of Justice, the petitioner ultimately approached this Court by filling this Writ petition bearing number as S.B. (Ml Writ Petition No. 4457/1993 with a prayer to issue suitable writ order or direction to the Government for release of the retiral benefits. 3. Reply had been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and No.3. It has been stated in the reply that the appellant - petitioner was asked to furnish certain information as per Annex R/1 - 3/1 for preparing the pension case on 18.1.1993 and an information was supplied on 4.2.1993. It is stated that certain information was not complete and therefore, on 28th April 1993. he was asked to complete the information with regard to car loan etc. It is not understood as to how the information supplied by the petitioner was not complete. The petitioner had given all the details to the effect that the building loan of Rs. 300/- granted to him at Jaipur. in the year 1981) had since been repaid. He had also elver tile. details of the car loan. The respondents themselves have attached a letter Annex. R/1 - 3/7 dated 23rd Sept. 1993 wherein the Principal and Controller had himself admitted while sending communication to the Director, Pension Department to the effect that out of the car loan, only Rs. 300/- were remained to be recovered and the house building loan advanced to the petitioner had since been repaid by the petitioner. Apart from above, it is stated in the above said letter that an amount of Rs. 17, 181/- towards the salary is to be recovered. 300/- were remained to be recovered and the house building loan advanced to the petitioner had since been repaid by the petitioner. Apart from above, it is stated in the above said letter that an amount of Rs. 17, 181/- towards the salary is to be recovered. It is not denied that such excess salary paid to the petitioner stands already adjusted. 4. The Principal and Controller of the College. Where the petitioner was, working, had been informing the Director, Pension and also Treasury Officer. Jodhpur right upto Oct. 1993 to the effect that No Dues Certificate' he issued to the petitioner for preparing his pension case. The petitioner was being pressed to produce 'no Dues Certificate' after obtaining it from the Treasury Officer. Instead of preparing the pension papers, without there-being any need or necessity, the petitioner was being asked time and again to give the particulars of his postings made by the Department from time to time. Vide Annex. A11 - 3/78, the Principal and Controller had even requested the Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to finalise the case of the petitioner. No effective steps were taken by any of the respondents to prepare pension case oI the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge in the order impugned has dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground that certain order had already been passed in June 1994 in regard to the payment of Provident Fund. Which amount had not been paid to him earlier and it is observed by the learned Single Judge that so far as G.P.F. is concerned, the petitioner can withdraw the amount as the orders have now been passed. In regard to the payment of pension, the learned Single Judge has non-suited the petitioner with a direction that the petitioner should submit the details of the payment made in response to the loan for - building and conveyance. It has further been observed by the learned Single Judge that the excess amount of salary, received by the petitioner-appellant, would be deposited or deducted. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. A Division Bench. It has further been observed by the learned Single Judge that the excess amount of salary, received by the petitioner-appellant, would be deposited or deducted. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. A Division Bench. of this Court had passed ai interim order on 21.7.1997 and had given direction to the respondents to see that the entire amount which is due to the appellant as retrial benefits should be paid within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. On 8.8.1997, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit and it was further observed that the question of interest shall also be decided by this court. 7. At the time of hearing, statement has been made by the parties that the Gratuity and other amounts have now been paid in the Month of August 1997 itself in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The only submission how, which remains to be determined by this Court is whether in view of the. above circumstances the petitioner is entitled to claim interest for which do counsel for the petitioner vehemently presses. 8. The counsel for the respondents states that because of the reason that the appellant had not produced the 'No Dues Certificate" therefore, pension paper could not be prepared. It is also admitted that at present the final statement of payment has been made even No Dues Certificate' is still wanting. 9. In our opinion the contention of the respondents has no basis and the petitioner is entitled to be awarded the interest. Time and again numerous cases are being filed by number of employees where such employees are not paid the retrial benefits for years together in which ultimately the State is burdened with the costs and interest to be paid on such delayed retrial benefits. Even in those cases where there is no dispute whatsoever, the pension papers are not prepared within time with the result that an undesired, unwanted and avoidable litigation it entered into by the parties. Ultimately, the payments are made on the directions given by the Courts with or without interest. This un fortune situation must be avoided. 10. Even in those cases where there is no dispute whatsoever, the pension papers are not prepared within time with the result that an undesired, unwanted and avoidable litigation it entered into by the parties. Ultimately, the payments are made on the directions given by the Courts with or without interest. This un fortune situation must be avoided. 10. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 , that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have valuable rights and property in their hands and culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of interest at the current market rate till actual payment and the penal interest on these dues are to commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. It was further observed that where claim was settled for more than two years on the ground of non-production of the last pay certificate from the-Treasury Officer, it was the duty caused on the Treasury Officer to grant every retiring Government servant, the last pay certificate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 , has observed as under: "2. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production -of the L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) and the N.I.C. (No liability Certificate) from the s concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records, whereas would be with the concerned Government 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 o 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 prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot he over emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. "3. The instant case is a glaring instance of' such culpable delay in the settlement of pension and gratuity claims due to the respondent who retired on 19.5.1973. His pension and gratuity were ultimately paid to him on 14.8.1975, i.e. more than two years and three months after his retirement and hence after serving lawyer's notice he filed a suit mainly to recover interest by way of liquidated damages for delayed payment. The appellants put the claim on the respondent for delayed payment on the ground that he had not produced the requisite L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) from the Treasury Officer under Rule 185 of the Treasury Officer under Rule 185 of the Treasury Code. But on a plain reading of Rule 186. The High Court held and in our view rightly that a duty was cast on the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring Government Servant the last pay certificate which in this case had been delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justification nor explanation had been given. The claims for interest was therefore, rightly decreed in respondents favour." 11. It was further held by Hon'ble. Supreme Court in the above said case that the State Government was at a liberty to consider whether the erring Officials, should or should not be directed to compensate the Government for the loss sustained by it by the culpable lapses of Officers. 12. In view of the facts of the case and in view of the authoritative law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and for the reason that many cases are being filed by the claimants for payment of pensions and other retrial benefits as has been observed above, the tax payers money is being paid to such claimants towards the interest on the delayed retrial benefits which is an unnecessary burden on the State Exchequer. It is the duty of the State/Employer to get the pension papers completed before the retirement date and all efforts be made to finalise the pension papers, and calculation of payments before the date of retirement so that when the pensioner is relieved, he should he relieved with no anxiety for perusing the payment of pensions or to run from one office to another office or to enter into unnecessary correspondence or to start avoidable litigation. Even though there are sufficient guidelines already provided in this regard but still the retrial benefits are being delayed by the Erring Officials on one count or the other. There are every chances that such type of unnecessary delay or harassment can also lead to corruption. Instances may not be lacking that the retired official can he compelled to get his pension papers completed or pension sanctioned by some other undesired methods. To weed out all these possibilities. it is necessary that the proper guidelines he issued to the Departments by the Chief Secretary by making it clear to all Head of the Departments that in case the retrial benefits are delayed without any plausible reason, in that situation the Head of the Department or any other Officer responsible for such delay shall he liable to pay from his own pocket the interest @ 121% after 60 days of the due date of the retrial benefits. It shall be appropriate that the pension paper's should be completed and all the retrial benefits be paid by resorting to the procedure as under: (1) Because of the reason that the retirement date is already determined, the Department concerned should take all necessary steps to collect the required papers either from the pensioner or from the office so as to complete all the formalities by the date, the pensioner is to retire. (2) To calculate all the retrial benefits including the pension and to pay the same either on the same day or sanction the same when the pensioner retires or immediately thereafter, but by all means within. 60 days of the date of retirement. (3) If the retrial benefits are not sanctioned/paid even after expiry of days from the date of retirement invariably, unless there are exceptional circumstances to act otherwise, the pensioner shall he entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the due date till actual payment is made. 60 days of the date of retirement. (3) If the retrial benefits are not sanctioned/paid even after expiry of days from the date of retirement invariably, unless there are exceptional circumstances to act otherwise, the pensioner shall he entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the due date till actual payment is made. (4) That the Competent Authority shall fix the liability for the delay caused in sanctioning the retrial benefits and if it is found that the delay for sanctioning the retrial benefits has been caused by the Erring Official, the State is bound to recover the same front that official but so far the pensioner is concerned, he would be paid the retrial benefits alongwith the interest by the State, if the same is paid after 60 days of the retirement Efforts should be made to minimise the filing number of cases by the pensioners to avoid the unavoidable litigation. (5) Invariably it is the administrative office who should be held responsible for completing the formalities and if once the formalities have been completed, the Pension Department of the Rajasthan shall proceed forthwith to complete its own obligations for getting the retrial benefits released. In case any delay is caused in the Pension Department of the State of Rajasthan, responsibility should be fixed for such delay and suitable action be taken against such Erring Officials. (6) Where any 'No Dues Certificate' is required, it shall he the responsibility of the concerned authority in the office after verifying the record to issue such 'No Dues Certificate' to the official concerned for the reason that all the service record including the detail of any advance payment on any count whatsoever and the last pay drawn particulars are already with the Department. (7) Where retirement had been sought by issuing a notice for voluntary retirement, in that situation all efforts he made to complete the papers during the notice period before the employee is relieved or in any case within 60 days of the date of voluntary retirement and in case the retirement is sought without any notice, the formalities of calculating the retrial benefits would be completed within the same period i.e. 00 days from the date of retirement and shall ensure the interest at the rate of 12 % p.a., if the retrial benefits are delayed after 60 days on the date of retirement. 13. 13. Above are some of the guidelines which should he observed by the Department and the State of Rajasthan should issue appropriate instructions in this regard. 14. In the present case the petitioner had already given all the details and even in the letter Annex. R/1-3/7 dated 23rd Sept. 1997, the Principal and Controller of the Office of the Medical College, Jodhpur, where the petitioner was working at the time of retirement, has written to the Director. Pension Department and also the Secretary. Health Department about the details of the loans which had already settled. Even this record was available with the Department and therefore, the department-respondent had no excuse to say that the details were not supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner shall he entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 4.2.1993 when he had otherwise supplied all details as per Annex. R/1-3/2 till the actual payment of benefits on each and every count i.e. the Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F. etc. 15. For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the above said directions, the writ petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, for necessary action in this regard.Costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/Writ Petition Allowed. *******