Heard Sri C. D. Bahuguna, Advo cate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus di recting the respondents to pay the pen sion and other outstanding dues of her husband to the petitioner w. e. f. 16-03-1983 (when her husband was retired from service on ground of ill-health) to 28-03-1989; and pay family pension to the petitioner with effect from 29-03-1989 when her husband died due to his continued ill-health. 3. Briefly stated according to the petitioner the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Pashu Sewak, a class IV post, in the de partment of Animal Husbandry in Dis trict Pithoragarh as on 10-6-1967 and has put-in more than 15 years of serv ice in the department of Animal Hus bandry as a class-IV employee to the satisfaction of higher officers and dur ing the entire service period, no adverse remark was awarded to him and his work and conduct remained up to the mark. No disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against him for any mis conduct. In the year 1981-82, when he was posted as Pashu Sewak at Khetikhan, District Pithoragarh, some serious disease developed to petition ers husband and his health started de teriorating day by day. On 16-03-1983, her husband was compulsorily retired on ground of his continuous ill health and due to the reason of his continueous ill health and he breathed his last on 29-03-1989. 4. The petitioner has further sub mitted that since the husband of the pe titioner had put-in more than 15 years service in the department of the Animal Husbandry, it was the legitimate expec tation of petitioners husband to get pension after his retirement but he was not paid pension as a result of which proper medical treatment could not be provided to him during his life time and resultantly he died before time. 5. It has been stated by the peti tioner in Paragraph 9 and 11 of the writ petition that the Deputy Director, Ani mal Husbandry, Kumaun Division, Nainital vide his letter dated 20-08-1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, directed the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh to take appropriate steps for providing family pension to the pe titioner. The relevant portion of the let ter of the Deputy Director dated 20-08-1996 is reproduced below: Hindi 6. The relevant portion of the let ter of the Deputy Director dated 20-08-1996 is reproduced below: Hindi 6. The Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh supplied all the required papers including service book of peti tioners husband to the Director, Pen sion, U. P. Lucknow, through the letter dated 12-03-1997, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The contents of the letter of the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh is reproduced to below: Hindi 7. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner annexed two letters of her deceased husband by which he had de manded pension from the department of Animal Husbandry after his compul sory retirement. One letter is of the month of October 1984 and another letter is of 23 & 24-09-1985. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and in Paragraph 4 of the same it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner had not fur nished relevant papers to the depart ment for getting pension; and due to latches on the part of the petitioners husband, pension was not sanctioned for him. This plea has been taken again in Paragraph 7 and 9 of the Counter affidavit. In reply to the contents of Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the rejoin der affidavit stated the following: "4. That the contents of Paragraph 4 of the C. A. , in the manner stated are not correct. In the supplemen tary affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner categori cally stated that after compulsory re tirement of the husband of the peti tioner on ground of continued ill health, he claimed Invalid pension from the department and submitted letters/representations to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh under whom he was then working and to the other authorities including deputy director Animal Husbandry, Nainital. He also stated that one let ter/representation was sent in Octo ber, 1984 to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh and another let ter/representation was sent on 23 & 24-09-1985 to the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Nainital and thereafter he sent a number of letters representations to the departmental authorities. " 9. The petitioner further stated in Paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit to the following effect: "5. That it is baseless to say or sug gest that the petitioners husband was responsible for not furnishing relevant papers/documents. " 9. The petitioner further stated in Paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit to the following effect: "5. That it is baseless to say or sug gest that the petitioners husband was responsible for not furnishing relevant papers/documents. The re spondents have not annexed any paper to show that the departmen tal authorities demanded any paper/ document from the petitioners hus band for providing pension to the petitioners husband and he did not supply paper/document pursuant to any letter of the department. In fact, it was the duty of the department to provide Invalid pension to the peti tioners husband and to get the nec essary papers signed form him but the departmental authorities did not at all care for it and now it is blam ing the petitioner for the latches which, in fact, occurred due to the fault of the departmental authori ties. " 10. From the perusal of the coun ter and rejoinder affidavit it is estab lished that retrial benefits to a retired person should not be delayed in view of the Honble Apex Court in the case Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. , re ported in JT 1999 (2) SC 359, where the following observation has been made: "now a days several writ petitions are being filed in this court and vari ous High Courts seeking relief for disbursement of retrial benefits, be cause of inordinate delay in pay ment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer J. stated in State of Mysore Vs. C. R. Sheshadri & others (1974 (4) S. C. C. 308) a retired government official is sensitive to delay in draw ing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecu niary expectation of the superannu ated public servant not unusual in government, it is becoming neces sary to issue directions, in several cases, for early payment of these dues. In yet another case in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair ( 1985 (1) SCC 429 ) this court had occasion to point out that usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of L. P. C. (Last pay certificate) and the N. L. C. (No liability certificate) from the con cerned department but both these matters pertain to matters, records which would be with the concerned Government departments. Since the date of retirement of every Govern ment 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 com pleted at least a week before the date of retirement so that the pay ment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the follow ing day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retire ment dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement can not be over emphasized. " 11. The learned counsel for the pe titioner has also referred an authority of the Honble Apex court rendered in the case S. K. Mastan Bee Vs. The General manager. South Central Railway, re ported in 2002 (8) Supreme Today 487 where the Apex court observed the fol lowing Paragraph 6 of the judgment: ". . . . It was an obligation of the Rail ways to have computed the Family Pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights. . . . . " 12. In view of the above decisions of the Honble Apex court, obviously it is the Government department, which is responsible for not computing and disbursing post retrial dues to a Govern ment employee after his retirement on time. 13. As regards the question of latches in matter of approaching the High Court by the petitioner in writ pe tition for claiming post retrial dues of her husband and for family pension, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the letters of the depart mental authorities dated 20-08-1996, 12-03-1997, 27-01-1997, 25-09-1997, 03-09-2001 and 04-04-2001 issued by the Deputy Director of Animal Hus bandry, Nainital and the Chief Veteri nary Officer, Pithoragarh, and the Ac counts Officer of Animal Husbandry de partment, Lucknow contained in Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the writ petition whereby efforts were made by the lower departmental authorities to settle the claim of the petitioner, but, in fact, the claim could not be settled. On the basis of the said correspondence of the lower departmental authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the higher depart mental authorities itself which caused delay in matter of settling the claim of the petitioner and ultimately the peti tioner had to file the present writ peti tion in the month of January 2002 in this court. 14. The learned counsel for the pe titioner has further submitted that non payment of monthly pension or family pension to a claimant creates recurring cause of action for the claimant every month, therefore, the delay does not create any legal obstacle. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also re ferred and relied an observation of the Honble Apex court rendered in the case S. K. Mastan Bee Vs. The General manager, South Central Railway, re ported in 2002 (8) Supreme Today 487 in support of her submission to the ef fect that mere delay cannot deprive a claimant of his/her legitimate right of Pension. In the above-referred case, the husband of the claimant died in the year 1969 and she filed writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the year 1992, that is, after about 22 years, for claiming Family Pension. The Sin gle Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition but the Division Bench of the same High Court in appeal re stricted the benefits of the claimant to certain extent. The claimant filed a Civil Appeal before the Apex court challeng ing the restrictions in benefits. The Civil Appeal was allowed by the Apex court and the judgment and order of the Di vision Bench was set aside. The judg ment and order of the learned single Judge was affirmed. The observation of the Apex court on the question of de lay in Paragraph 6 of the judgment is reproduced to below: "6. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husbands employer, viz. , Rail ways, 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 liti gation. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husbands employer, viz. , Rail ways, 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 liti gation. 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 de cision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the ap pellant under Article 21 of the Con stitution. . . . . . . . . The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned single Judge observed that the de lay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of Family Pension was not fatal. . . . . . . . " 15. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case D. S. Nakaro and oth ers Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 , that pension is neither a bounty nor a grace depending upon the sweet will and pleasure of the employer but is a valuable right of the employee. 16. The Apex court in the case Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, re ported in 2003 (7) AIC 18 SC has held as under: "the States of India are welfare States. They having regard to the Constitutional provisions adum brated in the Constitution of India and in particular Part IV thereof lay ing down the Directive Principles of the State Policy and Part IVA laying down the Fundamental Duties are bound to preserve the practice to maintain the human dignity. " 17. In the case Smt. Parwati Pande Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, re ported in 2004 (1) U. D. 603. I made certain observations in Paragraph 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under: "11. It may be observed at this stage that payment of Family pension to the petitioner for the services ren dered by her husband is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of In dia, which reads as under: "21. Protection of Life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " 12. Protection of Life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " 12. In the case Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 the Apex court has relied upon the judgment in Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1 : JT (2003) 5 SC 1 and Munn Vs. Illinois 94 US 113: 24 L Ed 77 (1877) and has ob served human condition in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The observation of the Apex court are quoted below: "recently Kapila Hingotani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) a bench of this court noticed the following observa tions of Field J. in Munn V. Illinois as to what is life, which was in the following terms: Something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. " 13. It is well settled proposition of law that award of pension is not a bounty from the employer or an act of charity. It is the indefeasible right of the employee and after his death of his dependants and family mem bers. . . . . . ". 18. The Apex court in the case State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in 1985 (1) S. C. C. 429: A. I. R. 1985 SC 356. observed the fol lowing on the payment of penal inter est: "pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in set tlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment" 19. In the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal (Supra), the Apex court ob served as under on the question of pe nal interest in Paragraph 2 and 7 of the judgment: "2. It would not be unreasonable to direct that there would be a liability to pay penal interest on these retire ment benefits. In several cases, de cided by this court, interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been di rected to be paid by the State. It would not be unreasonable to direct that there would be a liability to pay penal interest on these retire ment benefits. In several cases, de cided by this court, interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been di rected to be paid by the State. " "7. Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of computation of interest, the mat ter should go back. Instead, on the facts of the case, we quantify the in terest payable at Rs. 1 lakh and di rect that the same be paid to the pe titioner within two months from to day. " 20. The respondents have neither denied the fact in the Counter-affidavit that the petitioners husband was compulsorily retired from service on ground of his illness on 16-03-1983 nor have come up with any plea that the petition ers husband was not eligible or quali fied to get pension on any ground. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents only on the ground that the petitioners husband did not furnish relevant papers for claiming pension in time after his compulsory retirement. 21. Normally an employee is held entitled for retirement pension only when he has put in at least 10 years continuous service in the department. Since the petitioner had admittedly put-in more than 15 years continuous serv ice in the department, petitioners hus band was entitled for retirement pen sion and the respondents have not controverted the claim of the petitioner for her husbands retirement pension on merits and have rather contested it on latches. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that under Rule 6 of the U. P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 family pension is payable to the family of such deceased em ployee who has put in minimum period of 10 years service in the Govt. depart ment. Since the petitioner had admit tedly put in more than 15 years continuous service in the department, the petitioner was entitled for Family pen sion after the death of her husband. 23. The submission made by the petitioner in Paragraph 22 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is a very poor lady and after the death of her husband she is leading a lonely life and she has no independent means of her livelihood. 23. The submission made by the petitioner in Paragraph 22 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is a very poor lady and after the death of her husband she is leading a lonely life and she has no independent means of her livelihood. She is dependent on the outstanding dues of pension of her hus band and the amount of Family pen sion, which she is entitled to get after the death of her husband. The respond ents have not denied the contents of Paragraph 22 of the writ petition in Paragraph 6 of the Counter-affidavit. 24. Having given my anxious con sideration to the facts of the case, I come to the conclusion that the peti tioners husband had put in his long service of about 15 years in the depart ment of Animal Husbandry with a le gitimate expectation that on retirement he would get all benefits of service which as a matter of right is afforded to every employee after his retirement but due to inaction on the part of the departmental authorities, he was de prived of his legitimate dues of post re trial benefits during his life time and he ultimately died on 29-03-1989 without getting the fruit of pension for his long service to the Department. The peti tioner was also deprived of her legiti mate dues of family pension. In view of these facts, the respondents are liable to pay penal interest to the petitioner on the entire outstanding dues. 25. In view of the above observa tions, the petitioner is entitled to get pension and other outstanding dues of her husband w. e. f. 16-03-1983, and ar rears of family pension with effect from 29-03-1989 i. e. the date of death of her husband. The petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% p. a. on the outstand ing dues of Pension of her late husband and on arrears of her family pension. 26. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. A writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay the pension w. e. f. 16-03-1983 to 28-03-1989 and other outstanding dues of her husband to the petitioner and thereaf ter family pension to the petitioner ac cording to rules. The petitioner shall get 9% interest on all outstanding amounts. The entire dues must be satisfied within a period of two months from today. 27. No order as to costs. The petitioner shall get 9% interest on all outstanding amounts. The entire dues must be satisfied within a period of two months from today. 27. No order as to costs. RAJESH .