JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the state. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he retired on 21st October, 1976 from the post of Naib Tehshildar seeking voluntary retirement from service after about 25 years but his pension and other retiral benefits were not paid by the respondents at all. 3. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have said that interim pension was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 21.01.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue along with interim gratuity of Rs. 5148/-. (The period of interim pension mentioned in para 16 does not appear to be correct in as much as the same is mentioned as 23.10.1976 to 22.10.1976 though the petitioner himself has retired voluntarily on 21st October, 1976). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per his instructions some further amount of pension was paid in the year 1996. He contended that not only there was extra ordinary delay in making payment of the pension which the petitioner was legally entitled to but there is also no justification for such extreme delayed payment. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 18% on the amount of pension up to the day of actual payment. 5. Pension and retiral benefits of an employee or his family is a right and cannot be said to be bounty is now well settled. The Apex Court, in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305 held as follows : “pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone’s discretion. (Para 20). In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from underserved want was recognized and as a first steps pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The guid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered not master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount. (Para 22). Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. (Para 28). Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. (Para 29)” (emphasis added) 6. That being so, non payment of pension or family pension to an employee or his family in accordance with law to the extent he/she is entitled amounts to denial of right to earn livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The expression ‘right to life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution does not denote a mere physical or animal existence. The ‘right to life’ includes ‘right to live with human dignity’. In A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2003 SC 2189 it was held that ‘right to life’ enshrined under Article 21 means something more than bare survival or animal existence. The ‘right to life’ includes ‘right to live with human dignity’. In A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2003 SC 2189 it was held that ‘right to life’ enshrined under Article 21 means something more than bare survival or animal existence. The Court referred to its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803 where payment of very small subsistence allowance to an employee during suspension was held wholly insufficient to sustain his living and, was held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 7. In the entire counter-affidavit there is no averment providing any justification whatsoever, for non-payment of pension within a reasonable time to the petitioner. Once it is not disputed that the employee after getting voluntary retirement from service was entitled for pension and other retiral benefits and non payment thereof without any reason or justification is ex facie arbitrary, it entitled the incumbent covered, interest which is compensatory in nature. 8. Regarding harassment of a Government employee referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and others, 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307 held as under : “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....... A 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...........Harassment 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.” (para 10) 9. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 10. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment 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.” (para 10) 9. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 10. In the case of Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex Court said 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 Shivsagar 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 has 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. A Division Bench (Lucknow Bench) of this Court (in which I was a member) in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(8) ADJ 553 held as under : “Interest on the amount of retiral benefits 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 retiral benefits been paid in time to the petitioner, he could have invested the same for better utilization so as to live an honerable 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 bounty 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 meagre amount payable in the form of retiral benefits. The respondents being a State Government and function through its officers appointed in various department is supposed 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 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.” 14. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the following directions : 1. The amount of pension and other retiral benefits if not already paid to the petitioner, shall be paid finally to petitioner within three months. 2. On the amount of pension and other retiral benefits already paid and would be paid pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% commencing from the date after one month from the date of his retirement till actual payment. This amount shall also be determined by the respondents and paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of copy of this order. 3. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 50,000/-. (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) ————