JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this petition the petitioner has sought relief for release of pension and other pensionary benefits forthwith alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on 28-1-1969. During the posting of the petitioner at Muklawa, District Sriganganagar, one person namely Mr. Chanan Ram started to harass him, the result of which Mr. Chanan withheld the salary of the petitioner. Mr. Chanan abused and slapped the petitioner, the result of which the petitioner was compelled to lodge a criminal case against Mr. Chanan Ram. Subsequently, Mr. Chanan Ram was posted as Dy. Director in Jodhpur, as he was very close to the Director, Department of Ayurved, he manipulated withholding of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner without there being any rhyme or reason. On account of attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from the service on 28-2-2002. The petitioner submitted his pension case to the office of Dy. Director, Department of Ayurved, Bikaner Region prior to his retirement on 12-2-2002. Thereafter the petitioner met the concerned authorities for release of pension. Ultimately, the petitioner submitted representation and notice for demand of justice but with no result. Being aggrieved with above action the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. The respondent department filed a detailed reply. In the reply respondents have stated that the petitioner submitted incomplete papers of pension, because of which the pension matter of the petitioner could not be forwarded in time. An additional affidavit of Mr. Pawan Dhadhieh, Dy. Director, Ayurved Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur is also available on record, in which this Court has sought explanation for not making the payment of the pension to the petitioner. The answering respondents in the reply has mentioned that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner on 18-2-2002, which got decided on 5-6-2002 and thereafter, on 5-5-2003, payment of pension was made to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Pension of an employee is not a charity of the Government and payment of retiral benefits of an employee should have been authorised after 60 days from the date when its payment became due but here in the instant case the petitioner has retired on 28-2-2002 but he has been given the retiral benefits on 5-5-2003. A charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the 'Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner and the same was finally decided on 5-6-2002 itself but no efforts were taken to release the pension of the petitioner. The department was under an obligation to release the pension irrespective of the fact that an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was pending against him. 5. As per Government of Rajasthan's decisions appended below Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') if an enquiry is pending for minor penalty then pension of an employee cannot be withheld. Para 6 of the said decision is relevant for deciding the present controversy, which is reproduced hereunder : "6.Minor penalty proceedings no effect on pension : Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the RCS (Pension) Rules, 1996, confers on the Governor the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or a part thereof, either permanently or for specified period, and the order recovery from the pension, of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment on retirement. Sub-rule (2) of this Rule provides that the departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted before the retirement of a Government servant or during his re-employment shall after his final retirement, be deemed to be proceedings under this Rule and shall be continued and concluded. Accordingly, the minor penalty proceedings and the major penalty proceedings, which are instituted against a Government servant while in service and which do not get concluded before the date of retirement automatically become proceedings under Rule 7 ibid. Accordingly, the minor penalty proceedings and the major penalty proceedings, which are instituted against a Government servant while in service and which do not get concluded before the date of retirement automatically become proceedings under Rule 7 ibid. However, since grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of minor penalty proceedings, action under Rule 7 ibid for withholding or withdrawing pension etc., cannot be taken against pensioner in respect of whom minor penalty proceedings had been instituted and have been continued after retirement, therefore, do not literally have any effect on the pension in the matter of reducing or withholding of his pension. The disciplinary authorities should take note of this position and take steps to see that minor penalty proceedings instituted against Government servants, who are due to retire, are finalised quickly and in time before the date of retirement, so that the need for continuing such minor penalty proceedings beyond the date of retirements does not arise." (Underlined by me) 6. The respondent department has not given any cogent reason for not releasing the benefit of pension to the petitioner in time. 7. Rule 89 of the Rules, 1996 says about interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced here-in-below : "(1) If the payment of retiral benefits has been authorised after 60 days from the date when its payment became due, and it is established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government Servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this Chapter or elsewhere in these rules, interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month preceding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorized." 8. In the instant case, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, rather it is only because of casual approach of the department, the payment of pension could not be made within the time. The delay was on the part of the respondents. 9. In the instant case, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, rather it is only because of casual approach of the department, the payment of pension could not be made within the time. The delay was on the part of the respondents. 9. In case of State of Punjab and others v. Manjit Kaur, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 250 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had granted interest to the employee @ 9% p.a. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 5 of the Judgment has held as under : "Since there has been unexplained delay in granting the retiral benefits, interest is to be paid @ 9% from 11-9-2001. We direct accordingly." 10. Pension is not a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. 11. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the respondent department has not given any plausible explanation regarding not making payment of pension well within the time. 12. Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 is mandatory and whenever it is found that pension is not made within stipulated time because of lethargic attitude of the respondent department, then because of such action, an employee cannot be made a sufferer. When the respondents were aware about the fact that charge- sheet under Rule 17 was pending and for which the pension could not be withheld, yet the respondents withheld the benefit of pension of the petitioner, which is neither proper nor justified.12A. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. The respondent department is directed to make payment of interest on delayed payment of pension to the petitioner @ 9% p.a from 5-6-2002 to 5-5-2003. The respondent shall make payment of interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. The respondent department is directed to make payment of interest on delayed payment of pension to the petitioner @ 9% p.a from 5-6-2002 to 5-5-2003. The respondent shall make payment of interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******