JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. Petitioner’s father working as Junior Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation, died on 9th December 2000 while posted at Bahraich. Thereafter his mother was paid interim pension to the extent of 90% but gratuity, final pension and family pension was not paid despite various representations. She also died in the month of May 2004 and thereafter family pension which ought to have continued to be paid to the unmarried daughter and two minor sons, has not been paid despite repeated requests. 3. Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 referring to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf submitted that 90% of the interim pension was paid to the widow of the deceased employee but after her death, the legal heirs did not produce death certificate and therefore the department could not take any further action in the matter. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it is averred that though an application dated 17th December, 2005 from the petitioner was received but since he has not given his address, therefore, further correspondence could not be made. 4. In my view, both the defences are fanciful and have no substance at all. Once it is admitted that there was no procedural flaw in clearing 100% pension to the widow of the deceased employee, I fail to understand as to why final pension as well as gratuity and family pension was not paid to the widow. Further, the department had the permanent address of the employee concerned and it is not the case of respondents No. 3 & 4 that they sent letter to the legal heirs of the deceased employee at the permanent address but no response was received. 5. From the counter affidavit it is evident that the respondents No. 3 & 4 did not take any action whatsoever at their instance so as to show that they were eager to pay retiral benefits and made all attempts in this regard. 5. From the counter affidavit it is evident that the respondents No. 3 & 4 did not take any action whatsoever at their instance so as to show that they were eager to pay retiral benefits and made all attempts in this regard. On the contrary, it is a case of blatant inaction on the part of the respondents and that too without any justification of not making payment of entire pension, particularly when 90% pension as interim pension was already paid to the widow and 10% was withheld as also gratuity and family pension. As such the petitioners are entitled to interest on delay in payment of the amount. The purpose of withholding ten per cent amount of pension is only to make it convenient to the Accountant General, U.P., to check the calculation of pension etc., and on its clearance the balance amount is supposed to be paid without any further delay. In the case in hand, it is not the case of respondents 3 and 4 that there was any delay on the part of concerned authorities in verifying and making clearance for payment of ten per cent balance amount of pension. It is not a case of the respondents that delay lies on the part of the A.G.U.P. in granting sanction to the payment of the family pension to the legal heirs of the deceased. So far as non payment of family pension to widow during her lifetime is concerned, there is virtually no defence pleaded in the counter affidavit and, therefore, inaction in this regard is clearly illegal, arbitrary and amount to gross harassment of the members of family of a deceased employee. 6. For non-payment of gratuity amount, the defence taken is that checking of certain items issued to the deceased employee was pending and after the checking, payment would be released. It is really surprising that nine years have elapsed from the date of the death of employee concerned and still department is taking defence of alleged checking of the items issued to the deceased for non payment of gratuity. It is clearly a case where the authorities have acted negligently showing laxity and apathy to the need of the legal heirs of the deceased employee and have delayed payment of statutory and rightful dues without any valid, just or lawful reasons and they are liable to pay interest compensatory in nature. It is clearly a case where the authorities have acted negligently showing laxity and apathy to the need of the legal heirs of the deceased employee and have delayed payment of statutory and rightful dues without any valid, just or lawful reasons and they are liable to pay interest compensatory in nature. It is fit case where such authorities must also be saddled with heavy costs for their gross inaction and negligence in harassing and victimising the helpless heirs of the deceased employee. 7. The respondents should not forget that they are employees of a statutory body wholly owned by the State Government. The body, constituted State, under Article 12 of the Constitution and being so are the servants of the people. Use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. If a public functionary acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but it is abuse. The same would apply to a case of inaction also i.e. where it is bound to exercise its power but fail to do so. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State, its instrumentalities or authorities. It is the duty of the Court, therefore, to check such arbitrary, capricious action on the part of the public functionaries, to rescue the common man. It is a matter of common knowledge and judicial cognizance can be taken of the fact that in most of the matters where the sufferance is minor, the common man does not even complain and silently suffer it. He takes it as destiny or fate. The time has come when this Court has to remind the public authorities that harassment of a common man is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm the common man personally but injury to society is for more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. The ordinary citizen instead of complaint and fight normally succumbs and surrender to the undesirable functioning instead of standing against it. He has to be given a confidence and strength enough to stand and expose such illegality and apathy of public functionaries. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. The ordinary citizen instead of complaint and fight normally succumbs and surrender to the undesirable functioning instead of standing against it. He has to be given a confidence and strength enough to stand and expose such illegality and apathy of public functionaries. The Courts have onerous responsibility to generate such confidence and strength in common man. 8. It would also be useful to remind the public functionaries that 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 inaction 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. 9. Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 observed : “An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law……….public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it………..Harrassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. 10. In the case of Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex Court has follows as under: “No public servant can say “you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you can not hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 11. In the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has held as follows : “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. 11. In the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has held as follows : “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.” 12. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, AIR 1996 SC 715 the Apex Court held as follows : “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 13. Where, the authorities have acted negligently showing laxity and apathy to the need of the legal heirs of the deceased employee or the retired employees and have delayed payment of statutory and rightful dues, they are liable to pay interest compensatory in nature for the reason that such delay is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 (50) FLR 145, the Apex Court considering delay in payment of retiral dues to a government servant and liability of interest of the Government in such matter held as under : “Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed atleast 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 months. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized 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.” 14. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized 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.” 14. In the circumstances I allow this petition. The respondents are directed to pay the entire amount of pension including family pension, its arrears as well as gratuity to the legal heirs of the deceased within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a penal interest @ 10% per annum, which shall be payable on the entire unpaid amount from the date it fell due till actual payment The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs, which is quantified to Rs. 50,000/-. It is open to the respondent Power Corporation to realize the cost and penal interest from the Officer(s) concerned, who are found responsible for such inaction of belated payment of retiral/pension dues to the legal heirs of the employee concerned after conducting appropriate enquiry in this regard in accordance with law. ————