JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.N. Rai for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Standing Counsel and Sri H.M.B. Sinha for the respondents. 2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. These days this kind of cases are frequently coming to this Court where the employees or their dependant family members facing starvation on account of non payment of retiral and other benefits after retirement or death, and having not received any amount from the employer for long are forced to invoke equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the writ petition before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of their rightful and lawful dues. Denial or non payment thereof on the part of the employer is normally found without any reason or justification on the part of the employee concerned. 4. In this case also the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner after the retirement of his mother, who has also died while struggling seeking payment of such retiral benefits. The tragedy of the petitioner is writ large. Her mother Sunhari Devi, wife of Pyare was working as a permanent Safai Karmchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, District Bulandshahar and on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, retired on 31.1.1997. However, her retiral benefits were not paid despite of repeated request and ultimately after having struggled, in the hope of getting her retiral benefits, for almost 12 and more she died on 27.9.2009 and that is how now her son has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking above relief which included gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sworn by Sri Bhojraj Singh, a Clerk posted in Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja wherein the date of retirement of petitioner’s mother is mentioned as 31.1.1997 but her entitlement for payment of retiral benefits like gratuity, pension is not disputed. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sworn by Sri Bhojraj Singh, a Clerk posted in Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja wherein the date of retirement of petitioner’s mother is mentioned as 31.1.1997 but her entitlement for payment of retiral benefits like gratuity, pension is not disputed. It is said that she did not submit her claim for pension till 3.9.2009 and first representation in this regard was made by the petitioner himself after the death of his mother whereafter the matter was examined but since the petitioner had not filed succession certificate, the pension papers could not be forwarded to the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Meerut and Commissioner, Meerut Division for their approval. It is also said that a sum of Rs. 9374/- towards leave encashment and Rs. 9788/- towards provident fund was already paid to the petitioner’s mother. It is also said that due to financial constraints on the part of Nagar Palika Parisahd, Khurja, the retiral benefits of many other employees could not have been paid and in this regard, efforts are being made to get adequate funds from the Government. 6. It is, thus, evident that the entitlement of the petitioner’s mother regarding pension and gratuity etc. is not disputed. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s mother has not nominated her son in the official documents of the respondents, which is the requirement under the Rules for every employee while preparing the service record. When enquired, the learned Standing Counsel could not reply as to under which provision, for payment of retiral benefits of the deceased employee, his/her dependants would have to produce a succession certificate particularly when it is not the case of the respondents that the person claiming such benefit has not been nominated by the employee concerned. In the absence of such a stand and when no provision has been placed before this Court requiring submission of any succession certificate by such a dependant of the deceased employee, such defence is not understandable and shows fallacy on the part of the respondents. In the absence of such a stand and when no provision has been placed before this Court requiring submission of any succession certificate by such a dependant of the deceased employee, such defence is not understandable and shows fallacy on the part of the respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents 2 and 3 could not show as to why during about six years from the date of retirement till petitioner’s mother was alive, the retiral benefits could not be paid and if there was anything wrong/wanting on the part of the respondents themselves, whether any action was taken against the erring official. The reason for non payment of pension and gratuity etc. to the petitioner, therefore, is wholly imaginary, unsubstantiated in law and, therefore, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. 7. Pension is not a bounty but a right of employee who has served the employer for long and is entitled for retiral benefits being his deferred wages. The Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 , observed as under : “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 quid 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). 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 no 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)” 8. This aspect has already been dealt by this Court in detail in the case of Samal Chandra Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34804 of 2004) decided on 6.12.2005 and is applicable with full force in the case in hand also. 9. It has also been held repeatedly that non-availability of funds cannot be a justification for non payment of retiral benefits to the employees. In the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichan and others, AIR 1980 SC 1622 , the Municipality failed to discharge its statutory obligation of maintenance of roads, sewerage systems, filthing of public streets etc. which caused public insanitation, collection of filth, garbage etc. menacing public health in general. The Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. passed order directing the Municipality to maintain public roads clean, sewer and sewerage systems. The Municipality approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court raising plea of non-availability of requisite funds for discharge of its statutory functions. which caused public insanitation, collection of filth, garbage etc. menacing public health in general. The Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. passed order directing the Municipality to maintain public roads clean, sewer and sewerage systems. The Municipality approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court raising plea of non-availability of requisite funds for discharge of its statutory functions. The Apex Court considered the aforesaid defence of the appellant-Municipality and observed as under : “Its plea is not that the facts are wrong but that the law is not right because the municipal funds being insufficient it cannot carry out the duties under S. 123 of the Act. ................. The plea of the municipality that notwithstanding the public nuisance financial inability validly exonerates it from statutory liability has no juridical basis. The Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies and others regardless of the cash in their coffers, even as human rights under Part III of the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision. Likewise, S. 123 of the Act has no saving clause when the municipal council is penniless. Otherwise, a profligate statutory body or pachydermic Governmental agency may legally defy duties under the law by urging in self-defence a self-created bankruptcy or perverted expenditure budget. That cannot be.” 10. That apart, the respondents have not shown anywhere as to what efforts they have made to arrange the requisite finance for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner’s mother who retired long back. 11. 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 of law. 12. Regarding harassment of a Government employee referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. 12. 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) 13. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 14. 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 cannot hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 15. 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.” 16. 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.” 17. 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.” 17. Regarding payment of interest on delayed payment of the retiral dues, this Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari (supra) further held as under: “Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. In the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR 750, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows : “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 at least 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 panel interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.” In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained.” 18. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that non payment of retiral benefits and others to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no valid justification for the respondents to delay payment thereof. 19. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that non payment of retiral benefits and others to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no valid justification for the respondents to delay payment thereof. 19. Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement of petitioner’s mother was known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the her well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his/her retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. 20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner in respect to the period when petitioner’s mother was alive after retirement and for the period subsequent thereto if any family pension was payable to the petitioner in accordance with law alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 50,000/-. 21. However, respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to make enquiry in accordance with law and to recover the amount of interest and cost paid to the petitioner under this order from such erring officials who are found responsible besides appropriate disciplinary action in the matter. ————