JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this petition the petitioner has sought relief to finalise his pension case and he be made available all the retiral benefits with interest as also to make payment of due medical bills and TA bills, arrears of fixation of 1994 and of Vth pay commission. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was appointed on 11.7.1961 and he retired from the service on 31.5.2001. After retirement, he submitted all necessary papers for pension but noting was done by the respondent department. On 2.3.2002 he made a representation but of no avail. On 19.3.2002 he received a letter in which it was informed that his matter for pension has been referred to the Medical Department but of no avail. 3. The respondent department filed a detailed reply in which they stated that all amounts due, including retiral benefits, have been paid to him and there remains nothing to be paid further. They have further submitted in the reply that vide GPO No. 1971(8)R/3129E dated 12.7.2002, an amount of As. 2,05,277/- being the gratuity has been paid to the petitioner, PPO No. 155850 . has also been issued in respect of commutation pension. PPO No. 155850 . has also been issued and monthly pension amounting to Rs. 2,900/- plus dearness allowance is being paid to him. They have further submitted that payment of As. 69,670/- in lieu of unutilized privilege leave has been ordered vide order No. 2054 dated 4.5.2002. Moreover, arrear on account of fixation as per the Vth Pay Commission and arrears of annual grade increments amounting to Rs. 1,78,680/- have been paid to him vide bill No. 88 dated 4.7.2002. They have further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner while working as District Public Health Supervisor, had remained in police/judicial custody in a criminal case for offences u/s. 382 and 376 Indian Penal Code from 24.1.93 to 7.2.93, as a result of which he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, reserving the right to initiate departmental enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, reserving the right to initiate departmental enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service. On 12.12.1996, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and it was decided by the respondent department not to hold departmental enquiry against him on similar charges and, therefore, in accordance with Rule 54(2) of the Rules of 1958, the matter was regularised and the period spent on suspension was ordered to be taken into consideration as on duty for all purposes. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. 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 31.5.2001 but he has been given the retiral benefits of different heads on 4.5.2002, 4.7.2002 and 12.7.2002 respectively. 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 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 gratin payment. It is payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering soc:o economic justice to those who ir. the hey-day 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 as in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most prac'ical raising d'etre for pension is 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. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. The respondent department is directed to make payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity to the petitioner from 31.5.2001 to 12.7.2002, interest on delayed payment of unutilized privilege leave from 31.5.2001 to 4.5.2002 and interest on delayed payment on account of fixation as per the Vth pay Commission and arrears of annual grade increments from 31.5.2001 to 4.7.2002 @ 9% p.a. 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.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******