JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Satyendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi for the respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage. 2. The petitioner was working as Boarwell Technician in the department of Minor Irrigation and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1995. Towards payment of retiral benefits and provident fund, the respondents, though paid other dues and 90% of G.P.F. amount but balance 10% G.P.F. amount was not paid to the petitioner for more than a decade despite several representations and hence, having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating that 10% balance amount of G.P.F. along with interest as on January 1997 determined to Rs. 32,073/- has been paid to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.6.2008, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. On the face of it, the aforesaid amount, thus, has been paid to the petitioner after almost 13 years of his retirement. The reason for such a delay has been sought to be explained by respondent No. 2 in para-7 of the counter affidavit stating that 10% final payment was forwarded by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 4.11.2004 to the respondent No. 2 whereupon an authority letter dated 21.12.2004 was issued for payment of Rs. 32,073/-. However, it appears that the said payment was not made by the departmental authorities and when the matter came to the notice of respondent No. 2, it issued another authority letter dated 19.6.2008 to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, District Deoria with a copy thereof to the Treasury Officer, Deoria and to the petitioner and in this way, the payment has been made. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any valid reason or justification, the 10% amount of G.P.F. has been paid to him after such a long time and that too without any interest on the due amount on and after January, 1997. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any valid reason or justification, the 10% amount of G.P.F. has been paid to him after such a long time and that too without any interest on the due amount on and after January, 1997. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled for suitable penal interest for the laxity shown by the respondents and the writ petition deserves to be allowed with exemplary cost. 5. On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3, they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. The respondent No. 2 has also not been able to disclose any valid justification for delay for such a long time in payment of 10% of G.P.F. amount and that too without interest till the date of payment. 6. The liability of interest and manner of payment of funds are provided under Rules 11 and 24 of General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 (in short ‘1985 Rules’). A Division Bench of this Court dealing with the aforesaid provisions in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (8) ADJ 553 has observed as under : “From a perusal of Rules, 1985, particularly Rule 24, it is evident that the liability for payment of subscribers fund is absolute under sub-rule (1) on the authority concerned maintaining the said fund. It is provided that when the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber in the fund becomes payable, it shall be paid as provided in Section 24 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. However, the manner of payment has been prescribed in subsequent provisions of Rule 24. For the purpose of present case, it is not disputed that sub-rule (5) of Rule 24 would apply since the petitioner was an employee, other than Group -D employee. Sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 24 provides that the subscriber shall submit two applications in Form 425-A set forth in Fourth Schedule to the drawing and disbursing officer, in triplicate, one for payment of 90% of balance in the G.P.F. Pass book and the other for the residual amount. It further provides that ordinarily, the applications shall be made six months prior to the date of retirement in case of retirement on superannuation and within one month from the date on which the amount became payable in other cases. It further provides that ordinarily, the applications shall be made six months prior to the date of retirement in case of retirement on superannuation and within one month from the date on which the amount became payable in other cases. Sub-clause (5) (b) of Rule 24 of Rules 1985 provides that the drawing and disbursing officer shall thereupon prepare calculation sheets on the prescribed form, the current as well as five preceding financial years, in triplicate, and forward within one month from the date of receipt of the applications, two copies of the calculation sheets with two copies of the application and G.P.F. pass book to the senior most officer dealing with accounts attached to the Head of the Department, who, after subjecting them to appropriate checks forward the same within one month to the sanctioning authority mentioned in paragraph 2 of the second schedule with his recommendation for payment of 90% of the balance of G.P.F. pass book. The sanctioning authority thereafter is required to pass an order of payment of 90% of the balance G.P.F. on the application and communicate the same to the drawing and disbursing officer, the Treasury Officer concerned and the Account officer, in the form set forth in Appendix “C” so as to enable to the recipient to receive the payment. Therefore the entire procedure under sub-rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules 1985 is based on the amount mentioned in the G.P.F. Pass book. The balance amount shown therein would be the basis against which 90% and 10% of the amount respectively shall be mentioned by the officer concerned in Form 425-A.” 7. Further, deprecating the attitude of the authorities in harassing its retired employees with respect to payment of their retiral dues and in particular, the provident fund, the Court in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena (supra) further observed as under : “Interest on the amount of provident fund is not only compensatory but is a statutory liability of the respondents to pay the same for the reason that the amount deducted from the petitioner’s salary remain with the respondents and they may have utilized the same for their own purpose hence entitling the petitioner for payment of interest on the said amount. Had the amount of provident fund been paid in time to the petitioner, he could have invested the same for better utilization so as to live an honourable life after retirement in the absence of any other source of earning livelihood . The attitude and conduct of the respondents borne out from the record is nothing but is reprehensible and should be condemned in strongest words. It is no doubt true that an employer for just and valid reasons and in exercise of power vested in it can defer or deny pension and other retiral benefits to an employee provided the action of the employer is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and such a power also emanates from statute or the relevant provisions having force of law. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted “for the people, by the people and of the people”. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own ex-employee who has served for a long time and has earned certain benefits under the rules recoverable after attaining the age of superannuation. Pension and retiral benefits are not bountee but right of an employee crystallized in deferred wages to which he is entitled under the rules after retirement and non-payment thereof is clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it becomes more important for the public functionaries and the authorities to act with better sense of responsibility so that their ex-employee may not be subject to harassment at the old age when they have already retired and have to survive and maintain themselves and their family with the meager amount payable in the form of retiral benefits. The respondents being a State Government and function through its officers appointed in various department is suppose to discharge his duty strictly in accordance with law as observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or in action may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law.” 8. In view of what has been observed in the aforesaid judgment, which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case also, where the respondents have not been able to show any justification whatsoever for no payment of balance 10% G.P.F. amount to the petitioner within the period prescribed in the Rules and having caused the delay of almost 13 years in payment thereof, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner deserves not only payment of penal interest on balance 10% amount of G.P.F. for the delay but also entitled for exemplary cost. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance 10% G.P.F. amount to the petitioner for the period from February 1997 to 19.6.2008 on which date, the said payment was made. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost, which is quantified to Rs. 20,000/-. The payment under this judgment shall be made to the petitioner within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents. 10. However, the respondents are at liberty to recover the amount, which they are required to pay to the petitioner under this order, from the official concerned, who is found to be responsible for such negligence and delay, after making appropriate enquiry in the matter in accordance with law. ————