Heard Shri Rakesh Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner (since deceased) chal lenged his order of compulsory retirement dated 25-9-1992. While working with the Food Corporation of India, he was compulsorily retired by order dated 25-9- 1992. 3. Since at the time of filing of petition, no interim order was passed in the writ petition therefore, he stood retired compulsorily of course subject to any order which might be passed in the writ petition. 4. So far the challenge to the order of com pulsory retirement is concerned, the report of the screening committee has been placed be fore us by Shri A. K. Singh learned counsel for the F. C. I, and the material which was placed before the screening committee has also been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the F. C. I. 5. Shri R. K. Nigam though has made an effort to establish that there was no material before the screening committee and the ap pointing authority, so as to form an opinion on objective consideration of the said mate rial for treating the petitioner as dead wood or inefficient so as not to retain him in ser vice but on perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit and the report of the screening committee, we are of the view that there was sufficient material on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement was passed. 6. The committee has found that his order of promotion was wrongly issued and before the said order could be implemented, it was withheld as he did not fall within the field of eligibility nor his name did figure in the Agenda of Regulation under Regulation 22 (2) of the F. C. I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 at the time of SRC Meet on 27-12-1988/2-1-1989. 7. On perusal of the record, the committee took into consideration various ACRs which contain adverse remarks establishing that the overall performance of the officer has not been found satisfactory and these remarks have been communicated to the petitioner. In his CRs for 1980 and 1988, he was commu nicated adverse remarks. During 1983 and 1984, he was graded only fair and in 1985, his performance was reported below average which again is an adverse remark and the same was communicated to him. In his CRs for 1980 and 1988, he was commu nicated adverse remarks. During 1983 and 1984, he was graded only fair and in 1985, his performance was reported below average which again is an adverse remark and the same was communicated to him. For the year 1986, his performance has been rated as of moderate efficiency. The record also shows the petitioners involvement in the vigilance cases. It was observed that the official is in volved in vigilance cases warranting major as well as minor penalties. On consideration of the entire record, it recommended for the compulsory retirement. 8. We, thus, do not find any illegality in the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner (since deceased) but we find force in the argument of the learned coun sel for the petitioner that even if the order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the employee, before this court, there was no oc casion for the respondents not to release the post retiral dues and fix the pension without any delay after the passing of the order of compulsory retirement. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of this court to various in terim orders passed by this court, for making the payment of aforesaid dues but they were not complied with. In this regard, first order was passed on 18-4-1994 directing for mak ing payment of the legal dues of the petitioner but that was not done and in the meantime, two orders further, were passed on 7-7-2006 and on 24-8- 2006, directing the respondent for making payment of legal dues keeping in view the fact that the deceased petitioner was suffering from blood cancer but this fact was also not taken into account by the respondents though the petitioner (since deceased) was in dire need of money. When those orders did not move the respondents and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner also could not pursue the respondents to make the payment, the appearance of the officers was ordered in the contempt petition but it also did not move them for making the payment in compliance of the order passed by this Court. When those orders did not move the respondents and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner also could not pursue the respondents to make the payment, the appearance of the officers was ordered in the contempt petition but it also did not move them for making the payment in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Ultimately, it was only on 24-8-2006, this court issued direction for making the payment and also required the respondents to show cause as to why the interest on the delayed payment of the admitted dues be not awarded to the peti tioner and why damages be also not awarded for the mental agony and physical distress which the petitioner has faced because of the non-payment of his legal dues. 10. It was thereafter that an amount to the tune of Rs. 8,43,000/- has been paid to the wife of the employee, since he died in the meantime. 11. No cause has been shown by the re spondents as to why appropriate interest be not awarded for the delayed payment nor any explanation has been given as to why dam ages and compensation for the agony and physical distress which the deceased em ployee and his family has faced, be not paid. 12. If an order of compulsory retirement is passed, it is the legal obligation of the em ployer/appointing authority to immediately release the post retiral dues treating the em ployee to have retired compulsorily. It is not in dispute nor it could be that a public ser vant who retires compulsorily, is entitled to post retiral dues of Provident Fund, pension, gratuity etc. and that unless there is some or der of punishment which either forfeits any such amount under any particular head or curtails such benefits, the said amount can not be withheld nor any deduction can be made otherwise than in accordance with law. 13. By an order of compulsory retirement, only the period of service of the employee with the employer is curtailed but all other conditions of service remain intact and an employee who is compulsorily retired, is thus entitled to all benefits of post retiral dues in cluding the service dues/benefits, if any, which cannot be delayed for no valid reason. 13. By an order of compulsory retirement, only the period of service of the employee with the employer is curtailed but all other conditions of service remain intact and an employee who is compulsorily retired, is thus entitled to all benefits of post retiral dues in cluding the service dues/benefits, if any, which cannot be delayed for no valid reason. If a challenge is made to the order of com pulsory retirement either in the higher forum as may be permissible under the Rules or be fore the court of law, still such challenge does not give any liberty to the employer/author ity to withhold the legal dues unless and until any such orders are passed by such a forum. 14. Payment of the post retiral dues has to be made forthwith after retirement so that the retired employee may not face any monetary difficulty or fiscal restraint in carrying out his livelihood and meeting his expenses. There can be no justification for withholding of any amount of pension, gratuity or post retiral dues of an employee who has served the de partment for such a long period and is en titled to the fruits of his long service under Rules after retirement, unless there is some genuine legal impediment. Post retiral dues cannot be treated as charity by the employer, but a legal right of the employee. 15. In the instant case, the respondents withheld the legal dues of the deceased peti tioner B. K. Gupta and despite interim orders being passed by this court, they still withheld the payment for 12 long years and that too without giving any explanation before the court. The fatal disease of cancer also could not move the heart of the Respondents so as to make the payment to the petitioner and the aforesaid payment was made only after the death of the petitioner (B. K. Gupta) who was suffering from the disease of cancer, a fact well-known to the respondents which also did find mention in the order passed by this Court. How the family undertook the treatment of cancer and how did they manage for the funds, is not known but the fact remains that the le gal dues which ought to have been paid to the employee in the year 1992 itself, were not paid till the later part of the year 2006. 16. How the family undertook the treatment of cancer and how did they manage for the funds, is not known but the fact remains that the le gal dues which ought to have been paid to the employee in the year 1992 itself, were not paid till the later part of the year 2006. 16. It thus, does not call for any further debate that the deceased employee has been dealt with the greatest arbitrary, callous and inhumane attitude of the department. 17. We take notice of the fact that despite the court orders, the payment of the legal dues was not made and in the meantime the em ployee died. The wife of the employee (B. K. Gupta) is thus entitled for his compensation for the deliberate uncalled for delay in mak ing the payment of the legal dues. 18. We also take note of the fact that de spite show cause notice being issued by this Court in this regard vide order dated 24-8-2006, no explanation justifying such delay has been given till date. 19. Considering the facts and circum stances of the case, we provide that the respondents shall pay interest @ 10% per an num from the date when the post retiral dues and the pension became due to late B. K. Gupta till the date of actual payment. 20. The petitioner (wife of late B. K. Gupta) shall also be entitled to a compensation/dam ages for the agony and the distress that she and her husband faced during all these pe riod of turbulence when the employee was suffering from cancer which we assess as Rs. 2 lacs. This amount of Rs. 2 lac shall be paid in addition tp the amount which has been found due to be paid to the petitioner along with the interest, 21. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certi fied copy of this order. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner fur ther submitted that B. K. Gupta was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- for three years temporarily and thereafter he was retired in the year 1992. Therefore, his submission is that the period during which the petitioner was placed at the lower pay scale, having expired, he became entitled to the pay scale to which he was otherwise entitled. 23. 2000/- for three years temporarily and thereafter he was retired in the year 1992. Therefore, his submission is that the period during which the petitioner was placed at the lower pay scale, having expired, he became entitled to the pay scale to which he was otherwise entitled. 23. We do not wish to enter into this ques tion as to what should be the basic pay of Shri B. K. Gupta etc. and leave this question open to the authorities concerned to fix the basic pay in accordance with the rules. On deter mination so made, if any amount is further found to be payable, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner and consequently the post retiral dues including pension etc. shall be revised and refixed. The said exercise shall be done within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the arrears, if any, shall be paid within next one month. 24. We further provide that in case the aforesaid payment as directed, is not made within the time prescribed, the respondents shall pay an interest of 12% per annum but in that event too, the payment shall be made without any further delay and within a maxi mum period of further one month. 25. Subject to the aforesaid directive, order of compulsory retirement is upheld. 26. With the aforesaid directions/observa tions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Order accordingly. .