JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a 74 year old man, claims that he is entitled to mustering out/ special pension with effect from January 1, 1951 whereas Union of India and other respondents contend that after such a long delay of 46 years, this court should not interfere in the matter while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction. 2. The contextual facts depict that the petitioner was enrolled as a SYCE on May 25, 1940 in Doongar Lancers of Bikaner State Forces. At the time of enrollment the age of the petitioner was assessed as 17 years by the Enrolling Officer in consultation with Medical Officer in accordance with Regulation 136(0) of the Regulations for the Army and was recorded in his sheet roll. The petitioner was combatized as SOWAR on Feb. 15, 1945 and thereafter promoted to the ranks of A.L.D. and L.D. w.e.f. January 1, 1947 and April 1, 1948 and transferred to Kachchwa House at Jaipur on reorganisation of State Forces after Independence. On merger of the State Forces with the Indian Army the petitioner was discharged at Jaipur on December 31, 1950 after 10 years, 7 months and 7 days service on account of reduction of strength and reorganisation of his unit. The age of the petitioner was 26 years at that time as per discharge certificate. The employment of the petitioner was substantive and permanent and his entire service qualifies for pension therefore the petitioner is entitled to get the ordinary pension for Rank of ALD admissible after 15 years as per Rules. The petitioner has been denied Mustering out pension vide letter dated August 17, 1994 (Annexure-4) on the ground that as his date of birth is Feb. 15, 1928 he was supposed to be 12 years of age when employed as SYCE on May 25, 1940. Therefore as per Rule 9 of the Govt. of Bikaner Army Pension and Gratuity Rules, 1949 the service rendered by the petitioner from May 25, 1940 to Feb. 14, 1944 is not countable for pension being below 16 years of age. His qualifying service works out to 6 years 10 months and 10 days which fell short of minimum period of 10 years prescribed to earn pension under the Rules. The petitioner asserted in the petition that on the date of enrolment i.e. May 25, 1940 his age was 17 years and not 12 years. His qualifying service works out to 6 years 10 months and 10 days which fell short of minimum period of 10 years prescribed to earn pension under the Rules. The petitioner asserted in the petition that on the date of enrolment i.e. May 25, 1940 his age was 17 years and not 12 years. Job of SYCE was of adult person and as per Regulation 141 the minimum age even for enrolment of boys was over 14 years. Petitioner's age was recorded in his discharge certificate as 26 years on December 31, 1950 which shows that on the date of enrolment i.e. on May 25, 1940 he was over 16 years of age. Even as per entry in the sheet roll the age of the petitioner was 17 years on May 25, 1940. Thus the act of respondents denying the pension to the petitioner is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to mustering out/special pension. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been inter alia averred that the petition has been filed after a long delay and it deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to Mustering out pension as non-Combatant and Combatant as qualifying service falls short of 10 years. The petitioner was 12 years of age when employed as SYCE. Reliance was placed on Brij Lal v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4160/91 decided on 27.5.1997 . 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Regulation 52 of the Pension Regulations for the Army provides that Pension shall be payable for life. Regulation 83 mandates that (a) first claims for pension or allowance and claims for gratuity preferred within 12 months of the date on which they fell due shall be entertained and paid with full arrears (b) those which are not preferred within that period may be admitted with full arrears, if the person sanctioning authority is satisfied with the claimants explanation for the delay; if he is not satisfied with the explanation, claims shall be submitted for orders of the Government. 6. According to Regulation 90, term claimant used in Regulation 83 shall mean 'Record Officer'. 6. According to Regulation 90, term claimant used in Regulation 83 shall mean 'Record Officer'. Thus the record officer had to prefer the claim for pension of the petitioner and it was the record officer and not the petitioner who had to explain the delay. 7. In Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in the Government servant. The grant of Pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities but right to receive pension flows to the employee not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. 8. The object behind grant of pension is to further socio-economic justice. A retired employee has to be properly looked not on the ground of charity but on the basis of his legal and constitution rights. Pension is not a gratutous payment but a deferred wage payment which can legally be enforced. The court must adopt a liberal and progressive approach in interpreting the rules providing for grant of pensionary benefits. 9. From the discharge certificate (Annexure-5) the petitioner was 26 years on December 31, 1950 and thus was over 16 years on the date of enrolment i.e. on May 25, 1940. At the time of enrolment the age of the petitioner was assessed as 17 years by the Enrolling Officer in consultation with Medical Officer in accordance with Regulation 136(C) and was recorded in his sheet roll. There is no reason to disbelieve this record. Even in the matter of service rendered by the Minor the Kerala High Court in Ram Chandra Nair v. C.O.I. indicated that the stipulation that service rendered by the minor will not be counted towards qualifying service for pension and gratuity, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Such classification is not based if any discernible rational principles and is rather wholly unrelated to the objects to be achieved by the grant of pension. 10. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) respondent No.3 (for short CCDA (P)) vide letter dated August 17, 1994 (Annexure-4) denied petitioner's claim of pension. The petitioner's case of person was finally rejected vide letter dated July 25, 1997 (Annexure-17) and the petitioner instituted writ petition on Sept. 4, 1997. 10. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) respondent No.3 (for short CCDA (P)) vide letter dated August 17, 1994 (Annexure-4) denied petitioner's claim of pension. The petitioner's case of person was finally rejected vide letter dated July 25, 1997 (Annexure-17) and the petitioner instituted writ petition on Sept. 4, 1997. In my considered view the delay can not be attributed to the petitioner as it was the Record Officer who had to pursue the claim of pension as per Regulation 83 and 90. The CCDA(P) vide letter dated May 3, 1994 (Annexure-1) asked the petitioner to submit his birth certificate. The petitioner in compliance to the said letter sent birth certificate vide communication dated Sept. 24, 1004 (sic ?) (Annexure-2). According to certificate issued by the Administrator Gram Panchayat Tejasar on Sept. 15, 1994 the petitioner was born in the month of March 1923 in village Belasar Tehsil Bikaner. A look at Regulation 83 demonostrates that there is no upper limit for submission of pension claim. Even the claim can be entertained even after one year if delay is explained. The petitioner's claim for mustering out pension was not rejected by the respondents on the ground of delay. 11. The case of Brijlal v. State (supra) cited by Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable. In that case the claim for pension was rejected on June 13, 1952 and the writ petition was filed after 44 years from the date of rejection of the claim. Under these circumstances the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. 12. In Roshan Lal v. U.O.I. 1992(3) SLR 662 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court had occasion to deal with the argument in regard to delay and ]aches. It was held that as pension accrues every month no triable issue of delay can be said to have arisen. The pension being a statutory right conferred on an employee cannot be denied on the ground of delay and lathes and writ petition can not be dismissed on this ground. 13. It was held that as pension accrues every month no triable issue of delay can be said to have arisen. The pension being a statutory right conferred on an employee cannot be denied on the ground of delay and lathes and writ petition can not be dismissed on this ground. 13. Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab 1997(4) SLR 617 , observed that in a claim for recovering pension wrongly withheld, the plea of bar of limitation can not be permitted to be raised because the State has defaulted in the performance of its duty in not paying the amount when it became due. If retired Government employee can show that there was a delay in the payment of pension, the onus would be on the State to show that it is not guilty of any culpable delay and if it is unable to discharge the one or satisfy the court as to reasons for the delay a direction to pay interest for the period of delay would invariably issue. 14. As already stated, preferring the claim of the petitioner's pension was exclusively in the jurisdiction of Record Officer who had not properly handled it. The respondents are guilty of culpable delay in settling the petitioner's claim of pension. Despite the entries of petitioner's age in sheet roll and discharge certificate the petitioner was asked in the year 1994 to produce his birth certificate and even the birth certificate so produced by the petitioner was not considered. Thus the act of respondents denying Mustering out/special pension to the petitioner w.e.f. January 1, 1951 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to pay Mustering out/Special pension to the petitioner with effect from January 1, 1951 with interest @ 18% per annum. The arrears shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this writ petition, which is quantified as र 4000/-.Petition allowed with costs. *******