JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this petition the petitioner has sought relief for releasing the amount of his two months salary of November & December 1995, including arrear @ 12% p.a. and interest on releasing pensionary benefits after 15 months @ 12% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III on 3.7.1970 and after completion of his entire service, he super-annuated on 1.1.2001. He was not paid the salary of November and December 1995 because when the clerk of the School was bringing salary and other emoluments of staff, dacoits robbed the clerk and because of this reason, he was not paid the salary of the above period. He requested the respondents for the same but with no result. Respondent No. 3 also wrote a letter in this regard. Ultimately, he served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel on 6.6.2002 and after receipt of the aforesaid notice, the respondents released the pension even after a long lapse of 15 months. 3. In rebuttal the respondents filed a detailed reply. The respondents in regard to salary of petitioner of November and December 1995 have stated that the amount of salary and other emoluments were robbed by the dacoits, as there was also stay of this Court and because of which the petitioner and other staff members could not be paid the salary for the aforesaid period. They have further stated in the reply that the petitioner could not be released pensionary benefits in time because the original pension file of the petitioner was destroyed by the termite and the respondents prepared duplicate pension file and in the aforesaid process some time took place. 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 31.12.2000 but he has been given the retiral benefits after a long lapse of near about 15 months excluding the salary of November and December 1995. 6. The respondent department has not given any cogent reason for not releasing the benefit of pension to the petitioner in time. 7. 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 nor 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 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 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. 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. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. The respondent department is directed to make payment of salary of November and December 1995 amounting to Rs. 10,500/-with interest @9% from 1995, as also interest on delayed releasing the pensionary benefits i.e. from 31.12.2000 to the date of release of pensionary benefits, 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. *******