K. M. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) DAHYABHAI R. Joshi has filed this petition challenging the action of the respondents in not giving the petitioner the interest on the amount of belated pension and gratuity though the petitioner was entitled to the same. This petition was filed somewhere on 11-7-1990 and this Court issued notice on 20-9-1990 and the petition was admitted on 17-12-1990. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has started his career as a primary teacher with effect from 5-7-1946 under the service of the then idar State and after independence, Sabarkantha District School Board and worked there upto 7-7-1958. From 8-7-1958 to 31-10-1986 the date of his retirement the petitioner served different secondary schools in Gujarat in the capacity of an Assistant Teacher and Principal. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was lawfully entitled to get the pension and gratuity for the period from 5-7-1946 to 31-10-1986 i. e. , the date of his retirement. 2. 1 It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner prepared his pension papers and sent the said papers to the District Education Officer through the manager, New High School, Idar-respondent No. 3-School in time. However, the District Education Officer, Himatnagar-respondent No. 2 took an objection vide his communication dated 4-12-1986 observing that the services rendered by the petitioner under the District School Board can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary purpose of person only if the petitioner was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme during the said time. 2. 2 It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner had sent the testimonial dated 27-12-1982 of the District School Board certifying the services of the petitioner and also certifying that as the C. P. F. Scheme was not in force at the relevant time, no question arises about the C. P. F. Scheme in this behalf. After the receipt of the said letter the respondent No. 2 had informed the petitioner by letter dated 5-1-1983 that prior services rendered by the petitioner as primary teacher with that of the secondary school can be counted as qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary benefits in view of the Government Resolution dated 21-12-1971. The District Education Officer had informed the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 about the same on 18-1-1983 in this behalf. 2. The District Education Officer had informed the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 about the same on 18-1-1983 in this behalf. 2. 3 Thereafter, the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 3-12-1986 addressed to respondent drawing the attention of the respondent No. 2 that the services rendered by the petitioner under District School Board has already been joined, qualifying the same for pensionary purpose by respondent No. 2 vide his letters dated 5-1-1983 and 18-1-1983 as per the rules, regulations and instructions given by the Education Department. 2. 4 In spite of the letter, the respondent his letter dated 4-2-1987 informing the petitioner that as it is against the prevailing rules, the letter (proposal) dated 31-12-1986 of the petitioner cannot be sent to the Government for consideration. (See for Reference : Letter dated 10-3-1987 addressed by the petitioner to the district Primary Education Officer F/pa. 19)2. 5 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had acted in a highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which no reasonable and prudent bureaucratic would have acted. 2. 6 Thereafter, the petitioner again addressed a letter 10-3-1987 to the respondent No. 2 to sanction provisional pension and gratuity as directed in the government Resolution dated 30-4-1986 by his communication dated 10-3-1987. The petitioner sent a reminder letter dated 25-4-1987 requesting for grant of provisional pension. ( 3 ) AS the respondents failed and neglected to file any reply nor have they paid any pension to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before the Secondary Education Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal informed the petitioner to approach this Court, and thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application on 11-5-1987. ( 4 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 had not cared to act lawfully before sanctioning the earlier proposal for pension had agreed to count the services rendered by the petitioner as a primary teacher from 5-7-1946 to 8-7-1958 under the Idar State and Sabarkantha District School Board as qualifying services for the purposes of pension. Thereafter, said petition was withdrawn on 28-4-1988. ( 5 ) IT has been submitted in the petition that the petitioners pension case was finalised on 12-4-1989 and the petitioner received the amount of his rightful pension and gratuity on 29-5-1989. Thereafter, said petition was withdrawn on 28-4-1988. ( 5 ) IT has been submitted in the petition that the petitioners pension case was finalised on 12-4-1989 and the petitioner received the amount of his rightful pension and gratuity on 29-5-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that due to indifference, unjust and negligent attitude of the respondent No. 2 the petitioner remained without the benefit of pension and gratuity for a very long time and got the same only after incurring hard trouble, huge expenses and after approaching the Secondary Education Tribunal and this Court. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner got the amount of his pension and gratuity on 29-5-1989 instead of on 1-11-1986 i. e. , after a lapse of 31 months without any fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, has therefore, prayed that the petitioner would be entitled to get interest on the belated amount ofpension and gratuity. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. ( 6 ) WHEN this matter was placed for hearing before this Court, Mr. Y. S. Lakhani learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on this case the petitioner approached the Secondary Education Tribunal with a request to grant him interest on the belated pension on 29-6-1989. The petitioner also addressed a reminder in this behalf on 23-8-1989. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner received a reply from the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 12-10-1989 enclosing therewith a copy of the letter dated 31-8-1989 addressed by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 stating that there is no question of granting interest on the belated amount of pension. ( 8 ) AS the petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid reply, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Secretary, Education Department on 20-10-1989. He also addressed a letter to the Director of Higher Education, Gujarat State, gandhinagar on 3-11-1989 in this behalf raising the above-mentioned points with a request to pay the interest on the belated amount of pension and gratuity, copies of these letters are annexed with the petitioner. He also addressed a letter to the Director of Higher Education, Gujarat State, gandhinagar on 3-11-1989 in this behalf raising the above-mentioned points with a request to pay the interest on the belated amount of pension and gratuity, copies of these letters are annexed with the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the petition, it was submitted that the petitioner had sent the pension papers right in time before his retirement and only because of the careless and negligent attitude of the respondent No. 2 the pension and gratuity was delayed for about 31 months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the interest on the said amount as deemed fit and proper for this Court. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon Sec. 34 of the Civil Procedure Code in this behalf. Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under :"34 Interest :- (1) Where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decreed, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit : provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction the rate of such further interest may exceed six percent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I: In this sub-section, "nationalised Bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 (V of 1970 ). Explanation II: For the purposes of this Section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring liability. Explanation I: In this sub-section, "nationalised Bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 (V of 1970 ). Explanation II: For the purposes of this Section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring liability. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore, shall not lie. "he has relied upon Sec. 3 of the Interest Act, 1978. He has also relied upon Sec. 2 (b) of the Interest Act, 1978 regarding definition of "current rate of interest" which provides that current rate of interest means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than those maintained in savings account or those maintained by Charitable or Religious institutions) by different classes of Scheduled Banks in accordance with the directions given or issued by banking companies generally by the Reserve bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He has also referred to the definition of "debt" means any liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind but does not include a judgment debt. He has stated that the word "interest" is not defined. However, according to Wests legal Thesaurus, "interest" means "a charge that is paid to borrow for use of money". In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the term has been defined as "money paid for the use of money lent". In Blacks Law Dictionary, the expression "interest has been defined thus "interest is the compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties for the use for forbearance or detention of money. " He further submitted that the natural conception of the word "interest" is the ordinary or normal profit which the person entitled to the principal money might have made had he used the said money or his expected loss under usual or ordinary circumstances due to the non-payment of the same at the proper time. " He further submitted that the natural conception of the word "interest" is the ordinary or normal profit which the person entitled to the principal money might have made had he used the said money or his expected loss under usual or ordinary circumstances due to the non-payment of the same at the proper time. ( 11 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in 1985 SCC (Lands) 278 in which the Honble supreme Court has observed as under :"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 May 19, 1973. His pension and gratuity were ultimately paid to him on August 14, 1975 i. e. , more than two years and three months after his retirement, and hence, after serving lawyers notice he filed a suit mainly to recover interest by way of liquidated damages for delayed payment. The appellants put the blame on the respondent for delayed payment on the ground that he had not produced the requisite l. P. A. (Last Pay Certificate) from the Treasury Officer under the Rule 186 of the Treasury Code. But on plain reading of Rule 186 the High Court held and in our view rightly-that aduty was cast on the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring Government servant the last pay certificate which no this case had been delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justification nor explanation had been given. The claim for interest, was therefore, rightly decreed in respondents favour. " ( 12 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, reported in 1982 (2) SLR 131 and in Para 8 (on page 134), the Honble Supreme court has held as under :". . . WE may observe that even as a right to receive pension, although accruing on retirement is a condition of service, so also the right to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary for the period of unutilised leave accruing on the date of retirement must be considered condition of service. "12. . . WE may observe that even as a right to receive pension, although accruing on retirement is a condition of service, so also the right to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary for the period of unutilised leave accruing on the date of retirement must be considered condition of service. "12. A. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U. P. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 and in Para 5 on page 1214 the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : "we have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time schedule for various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental Departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the rules/instructions are followed strictly much of the litigation can be avoided and retired Government servants will not feel harassed because after all grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the Government servant. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. " ( 13 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Garbaddas Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2000 (4) GLR 3474 . In Para 5 of its judgment, this Court has observed as under :"having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to the Court that even if the State had any reservations about payment of interest on arrears, nothing prevented the State from atleast paying the arrears of pension. It also appears to the Court that the delay in payment of arrears of pension should result into liability being foisted on the officer/employee responsible for the delay by such employee/officer being required to pay 18% p. a. interest since the government does not prepare to award any interest for the interregnum. It also appears to the Court that the delay in payment of arrears of pension should result into liability being foisted on the officer/employee responsible for the delay by such employee/officer being required to pay 18% p. a. interest since the government does not prepare to award any interest for the interregnum. Hence, the interests of justice would be served if the petition is allowed in terms of the following directions : (i) The respondent shall pay the petitioner the arrears of pension under Freedom fighters Pension Scheme with effect from the date on which the application was made (i. e. , from 16-8-1990) till the date of pension order (31-7-1999 ). This direction shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or a certified copy of this judgment whichever is earlier. (ii) If the above direction is not complied with the respondent shall pay interest at 15% p. a. from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or a certified copy of this order whichever is earlier till the date of payment of arrears and the respondents shall recover the same from the officer/employee responsible for the delay. (iii) The respondent shall pay the petitioner costs of this petition which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- along with the arrears of pension from 16-8-1990 to 31-7-1999. (iv) Whenever a freedom fighter who has been granted pension under the Freedom fighters Pension Scheme with effect from the date of the order approaches the Government with a representation to pay him arrears of pension with effect from the date of application for pension as per the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India, air 1993 SC 2127 and if the applicant also undertakes to waive the interest for the late payment of such arrears the respondent shall pay such arrears within two months from the date of receipt of such representation. If, however, the respondent does not release the arrears of pension within two months as aforesaid the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% p. a. on the arrears with effect from the date of receipt of the representation till the date of payment of arrears and such interest may be recovered from the officer/employee who may be found responsible for the delay. (v) In case, the respondent does not comply with the aforesaid directions and any freedom fighter is required to approach this Court claiming the arrears between the date of the application for pension and the date on which the government sanctioned the pension to a freedom fighter under the Scheme the concerned officer/employee whose default requires such applicant to approach this Court shall be personally made liable to pay exemplary costs which shall be not less than Rs. 5,000/- over and above the liability to pay interest as aforesaid. " ( 14 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Coram : Kundan Singh, J.), in Special Civil Application No. 6111 of 1990 in the case of Rajikant R. Upadhyay v. Gujarat Government, decided on 14-6-2001(reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2628 ), where in a similar case this Court granted 12 per cent interest on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity in this behalf. ( 15 ) MR. B. Y. Mankad learned A. G. P. , on behalf of the respondent government submitted that in this case the petitioner has sent his pension papers late, and therefore, he has to be blamed. In the facts and circumstances, this court may not award interest. On the contrary, the learned A. G. P. , further submitted that the Education Department is not at fault at all as it is the duty of the respondent-management of the school to send the pension papers of the petitioner within the scheduled time and it has not been done so by the respondent no. 3. Subsequently, those papers were submitted but the same were not signed and verified by the respondent No. 3 then those papers were signed in this Court when the contempt proceedings were initiated. As such the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not responsible for delay in making payment of amount of pension and gratuity etc. , to the petitioner. ( 16 ) I have carefully considered the facts giving rise to this petition and i have noted all the relevant dates by which the respondent No. 2 has seen the aspect by which the entire payment of pension and gratuity has been delayed in this behalf. It is an undisputed fact that present petitioner has retired on 31-10-1986 from the school. It is an undisputed fact that present petitioner has retired on 31-10-1986 from the school. It is his case that he has submitted his pension papers in time. However, due to bureaucratic approach of respondent No. 2, it has not taken care to see the pension papers of the petitioner properly. The delay has occurred in payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. When i have narrated the facts I have narrated in details as to how the respondent no. 2 was adamant in not granting pension and gratuity to the petitioner. Though the petitioner was constantly reminding the respondent-Government to give pension, the Government was not paying any heed to the requests of the petitioner. It may be noted that the respondent No. 2 of his own did not decide to grant pension. When the petitioner approached the Secondary Education Tribunal, and thereafter, this Court and ultimately at that time the respondent No. 2 sanctioned necessary pension in this behalf. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the said amount from the expiry of two months from the date of retirement of the petitioner i. e. , from 31-12-1986 till he received payment on or about 29-5-1989. The learned A. G. P. , for the respondent-Government submitted that though the rate of interest is lower at present, higher rate of interest may not be awarded to the petitioner. However, one has to see the rate of interest of 1986. When the payment was delayed, this Court should grant 12 per cent interest in this behalf. In my view, the request of the petitioner is reasonable in this behalf, and therefore, the respondent-Government will pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum on both the amounts i. e. , pension and gratuity from 1-1-1987 to 29-5-1989 with 12% interest thereon. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Garbaddas Thakkar (supra) it will be open for the respondent No, 1 to take necessary steps against respondent No. 2 and recover the said amount personally from respondent No. 2 in this behalf. The petition, is therefore, requires to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .