JUDGEMENT Heard Sri C.O. Bahuguna, counsel for the petitioner and Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension and other post retiral dues to the petitioner with effect from the date of her retirement on superannuation with interest @12 per annum. 3. Briefly stated Initially the petitioner was appointed in Class IV as Chaukidar/Sevika on 28-6-1980 on temporary basis against the substantive and vacant post in Kanya Junior High School, Kaladhungi, District Nainital. After completing five years service she made an application to the Distrlct Basic Education Officer, Nainital for confirming her on the class IV Post but the District Basic Education Officer did not pay any heed to the request made by the petitioner., On 19-9-1981, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nainital, directed the petitioner to complete her service book falling which leave' will not be permissible to her. The petitioner on 31-12-1988 sent an application to the Education Superintendent, Nagar Kshetra, Nainltal and submitted that she has been working in the department for the last several years but she has not been made permanent on' the post held by her. Further she also submitted application on 4-5-1990., The petitioner has submitted that the Director of Education Basic and the Chairman, Basic Education Board, Allahabad, Issued an order on 24-8-1995 In which it was provided that Class IV employees working in the Basic Schools on fixed pay of Rs. 750/- may , be absorbed/adjusted against vacant and substantive post on regular pay scale of 750-940. Similar order was Issued on 4-10-1995 by the Department of Basic Education for absorbing/adjusting Class IV employees In regular, pay scale. Pursuant' to that order the Education Superintendent, Nagar Kshetra, Nainital vide order dated 17-10-1995 granted her regular pay scale .. and she was posted in Basic School, Sher-ka-Danda, Nainital. She has retired from Class IV post on' 1-102001 after superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has completed qualifying service which entitled her for pension 'but the respondents have not paying her pension despite several requests made by her. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. and she was posted in Basic School, Sher-ka-Danda, Nainital. She has retired from Class IV post on' 1-102001 after superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has completed qualifying service which entitled her for pension 'but the respondents have not paying her pension despite several requests made by her. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner did not serve for continuous 10 years in a regular service, she was not found entitled to the payment of pension as per the relevant rules. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed on 28-6-1980 on .fixed, pay. She was continued working as Class IV employee on minimum pay scale till 1-10-1995 when she was made regular. She retired from service on 1-10-2001 after supperannuation. Thus she has completed 20 years continuous service as class IV employee in the respondent Department. The service rendered, by 'the petitioner as temporary employee getting fixed pay at minimum of the pay scale, cannot be excluded for counting her total service for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits. 6. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 20-4-2004 of this Court in the case Anand Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal & others W.P. No. 393 (5/5) of 2004, wherein after relying upon the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. others (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337, pensionary benefits were granted to the petitioner and it has been held as under: "The Apex Court was considering the Scheme and the status of a work charge employee even after being confirmed it has been held that a workcharge employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work charge employee and he continues to be a workcharge employee. The question of regularisation against a regular vacancy was not in issue before the Apex Court. No rule, law of any Government Order has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State to indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the workcharge employee indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the workcharge employee who have to their credit a considerable period of service and even in cases after very longer period of service, they retire as such. Even no provision for confirmation of a work charge employee as a workcharge employee is available in the State of Uttar Pradesh nor any such provision has been shown by the learned State Counsel despite being specifically asked for. From the facts of the case of Thingujam Borjen Meetal (supra) it is clear that the scheme framed by the Government confine the benefits to the regular Government employees as per provisions of para 3 and the workcharge employees are covered by another set of Rules of 1978. It is also obvious that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not have an occasion to consider the question of daily wage or a work charge employee who has been allowed to continue for a considerable length of service and has legitimate expectation of being regularised against a vacancy if the regular vacancy is not available at the time when he was engaged on daily wages or was converted into a workcharge employee in the workcharge establishment." 7. In the case Shiv Prasad Bijalwan vs. State & others, writ petition No. 6285 of 2001 (5/5), decided on 19-5-2005 this Court has held as under: "The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the abovementioned judgments. Thus I hold that the Workcharged employees are entitled to get pentionary benefits and their services rendered as such should be counted for calculating the pension, gratuity etc." 8. Apex Court in the case N.K. Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Shimla and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 2114, has held that the work-charged employees, promoted and became regular employee In view of Rationalised Scheme can claim counting of service period for fixation of seniority and further promotion. 9. Thus in view of above, the service rendered by the petitioner as temporary employee on fixed pay, shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 10. It has been held in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 (1) S.C.C. 429, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a valuable right and property and the petitioner has a right to claim by virtue of the continuous services rendered by him. 10. It has been held in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 (1) S.C.C. 429, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a valuable right and property and the petitioner has a right to claim by virtue of the continuous services rendered by him. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below :- "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 decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. 11. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has also been followed in Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another JT 1999 (2) SC 359 and it has been held as under : "Now-a-days, several writ petitions are being filed in this court and various High Courts seeking relief for disbursement, of retiral benefits, because of inordinate delays in payment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer J. stated in State of Mysore Vs. CR. Sheshadri & others (1974(4) S.CC 308), a retired government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public servant- not unusual in government, it is becoming necessary 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) see 429) this court had occasion to point out that usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (last pay certificate) and the N.L.C. (no liability certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the, concerned Government Department. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much-known in advance we fall to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. 12. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner within one month after the receipt of the certified copy of this order along with interest @ 6% per, annum. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.