TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) THE husband of the petitioner was a Principal in Shri Dharm Sanskrit Vidhyalaya which is an educational institution recognized under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and is also receiving a grant-in-aid from the State Government. The husband of the petitioner was murdered on 19. 7. 1981 while in service. The petitioner applied for a family pension. The Additional inspector, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, vide letter dated 30. 9. 1985 intimated the Deputy Director of education that the pension papers would not be processed as the husband of the petitioner had not submitted the form indicating as to whether he would retire at the age of 58 years or 60 and further enquired as to whether the new pay scale would be admissible in the case of the petitioners. It transpires that on account of the correspondence being made between one authority and another authority, the petitioner ran from pillar to post and could not get the relief. From the record, it further transpires that on 8. 8. 2001 the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to submit all the documents. Based on the aforesaid direction it transpires, that certain papers were forwarded on 28. 10. 2001 by the Principal of. the Institution and subsequently by an order dated 7. 11. 2001 the Joint Director of Education passed an order granting family pension to the petitioner. Based on the order of the Joint Director a sum of Rs. 1,90,331/- + Rs. 29, 875/- was paid to the petitioner as arrears. ( 2 ) IN this way, the petitioner started receiving family pension after almost 20 years from the date of death of her husband. The petitioner made a representation to the authority for payment of interest on the delayed payment and when no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20812 of 2002 which was disposed of by an order dated 17. 5. 2002 directing the authority to decide the representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the authority by an order dated 9. 4. 2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner and the claim for interest on delayed payment. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 9. 4. 5. 2002 directing the authority to decide the representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the authority by an order dated 9. 4. 2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner and the claim for interest on delayed payment. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 9. 4. 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), jhansi Region, Jhansi and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest on the delayed family pension @ 18% p. a. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri N. L. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) THE impugned order indicates that the claim of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that the delay had been caused by the petitioner herself in not coming forward earlier. In my view, the reason assigned in the impugned order is totally vague. No reason has been given as to how the petitioner delayed the matter. On the other hand, the record shows that as far back as on 30. 9. 1985 the Additional Inspector, Jhansi Region, Jhansi had written a letter to the Deputy director of Education with regard to the processing of the family pension. The record indicates, that the correspondence was being made by one authority to another authority. There is no allegation or any whisper in the impugned order, that the educational institution was responsible for not remitting the papers to the authority. Consequently, I do not find any justification in the action of the respondents, in holding, that the petitioner was responsible for the delay. ( 5 ) IN S. K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr. , [2003 (1 )JCR184 (SC )], JT2002 (10 )SC 50 , (2003 )I LLJ561 SC , (2003 )1 MLJ79 (SC ), (2003 )1 SCC184 , 2003 (1 )UJ325 (SC ), (2003 )1 UPLBEC247 , the supreme Court vide repelling a similar argument with regard to the alleged delay on the part of the pensioner held" on the death of the husband of the" appellant, it was obligatory for her husbands employer viz. The Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. " ( 6 ) IN my view, admittedly the petitioners husband died and the petitioner became entitled to a family pension. The process of releasing the family pension should have been initiated and completed at the earliest by the respondents. It is well known, that an untimely death, like the present one, creates a family crisis and, therefore, the relief in the nature of family pension should have been given at the earliest opportune moment. In the present case, it is has taken 20 years for the respondents to release the pension after making the petitioner run around in circles. ( 7 ) IN Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 1999 (2) SCC 438, the Honble Supreme court held "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. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfuaunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. " ( 8 ) FROM the aforesaid, it is clear, that if the department does not follow the Rules relating to the releasing of the pension or the family pension, the department would be liable to pay the interest on delayed payment. " ( 8 ) FROM the aforesaid, it is clear, that if the department does not follow the Rules relating to the releasing of the pension or the family pension, the department would be liable to pay the interest on delayed payment. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a claim for a grant of the interest on the delayed payment. The petitioner has claimed 18 interest whereas the rate of interest has now come down. In my opinion, no purpose would be served in remitting the matter. back to the authorities for the computation of the interest since it will only delay the matter. Instead, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I quantify the interest payable. ( 10 ) IN the result the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for the interest on the belated payment of the family pension. Instead of calculating the interest, I direct the respondents to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 35,ooo/- towards interest which shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. . .