D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Parvej Alam Ansari, holding brief of Shri H. K. Singh. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. . representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who retired as Block Development Officer of the State of U. P, on June 30. 1995, has not been granted retiral benefits for the period commencing from January 1, 1996. hitherto. Long back, to be precise, on October 31. 1995. he approached through his letter for the grant of retiral benefits. Later on. he moved representation dated January 12. 1996 before the respondent No. 3. A copy of this representation is to be found on record as Annexure-5 to the petition. Neither the letter nor representation was responded to. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, therefore, moved before the respondent No. 3 by representation dated March 30, 1996. a copy whereof is Annexure-6 to the petition. This representation too went unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representations dated June 3, 1996. July 8, 1996. September 7, 1996 and September 21, 1996, copies whereof are Annexures-7, 8, 9 and 10. respectively. On these representations also the concerned authorities turned deaf ears. ( 4 ) EVENTUALLY, the petitioner approached this Court through instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) ON January 9, 1998. while entertaining the petition, the Court, on the request of learned standing counsel who had accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, granted four weeks time for filing counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit was filed. Again, on July 14, 2000, on the request of the learned standing counsel, the Court granted one more and final opportunity to the respondents and granted two weeks and no more further time for filing counter-affidavit. ( 6 ) THE office report dated July 31, 2000, recorded on the order-sheet, indicates that no counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned standing counsel does not dispute this position. Under the circumstances, the Court is left with no choice but to proceed on the assumption that the averments made in the writ petition are correct. ( 7 ) FROM the averments made in the writ petition, undisputed position that emerges is : that the petitioner retired on June 30. Learned standing counsel does not dispute this position. Under the circumstances, the Court is left with no choice but to proceed on the assumption that the averments made in the writ petition are correct. ( 7 ) FROM the averments made in the writ petition, undisputed position that emerges is : that the petitioner retired on June 30. 1995 as Block Development Officer : that the requisite formalities for the grant of retiral benefits had been completed by the petitioner ; and that the retiral benefits which the petitioner may be entitled have not been granted hitherto ( 8 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that the grant of retiral benefits to an employee of the State is not a matter of grace or charity. Indeed, he is entitled to retiral benefits as a matter of legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right. Instant case is a sad commentary of the inaction on the part of the respondents, on account of which the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful dues despite his repeated approaches to the concerned authorities. ( 9 ) ON the facts and circumstances, noticed above, in the opinion of the Court, the stage has arrived for intervention by this Court. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents, Jointly and severally, are directed to settle the claim of the petitioner in respect of his retiral benefits and ensure the payment of all the dues to him within a period of three months, to be computed from today. Shri k. M. Sahai. learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. in whose presence this order has been passed shall communicate to the respondents promptly. Petitioner shall also produce before the respondents a certified copy of this order as early as possible. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not wait for production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner and shall initiate action on the information received by them through Shri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. .