JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Chandra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Store Keeper in the Health Department of Nagar Nigam, Moradabad from where he retired on 28.2.2005 after attaining the age of superannuation. Since that date he has not even been paid the provisional pension and he has been suffering economically and socially as well. The petitioner has made several representations which did not bring any fruitful result and finally this writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on his retirement on 28.2.2005, he handed over the charge to one Sri Dashrath Lal Ojha. The charge certificate was countersigned by the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad. This document has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A no dues certificate duly signed by the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said document shows that various other officers/in charges of different sections like library department, go-down and store keeper (Health) have also counter signed the same, giving a complete no dues certificate in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that he approached the Nagar Ayukta many times for payment of his pension but nothing was done. He has annexed two such representations which have been annexed as Annexure s 3 and 4 to the writ petition. 4. Sri Prem Chandra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2, the Nagar Nigam informed that the counter affidavit has already been filed to the writ petition and a rejoinder to the same has also been filed. The counter and rejoinder affidavits are on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party Sri Prem Chandra has fairly admitted that no pension has been paid to the petitioner but he hastened to add that there are reasons for the same which have been enumerated in the counter affidavit. 6. In para 6 of the counter affidavit the opposite parties have clearly admitted that a proper handing over of the charge was done through a charge certificate duly counter signed by the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Moradabad on 28.2.2005. 7. 6. In para 6 of the counter affidavit the opposite parties have clearly admitted that a proper handing over of the charge was done through a charge certificate duly counter signed by the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Moradabad on 28.2.2005. 7. In para 7 of the counter affidavit the objection has been raised that the ‘No Dues Certificate’ submitted by the petitioner (Annexure 2) is not proper. Although it has been issued by the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and duly countersigned by other Section Officers but the dates on which these signatures have been made are not 28.2.2005 but a few days prior to this. This according to the counter affidavit is improper hence bad for the purposes of the no dues. The no dues according to the counter affidavit could only be given either on or later than 28.2.2005. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a normal affair. The process of preparing the pension papers of any employee starts at least six months prior to his retirement. The various Govt. orders have been issued in this regard and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that delay should not be caused in preparation of pension papers of an employee. Moreover, it is not the case of the opposite parties that any particular item is still in the possession of the petitioner. Neither any inquiry has been done in this regard nor any explanation has been sought from the Varistha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad or other officials who have given the said no dues. No other format is prescribed on which the no dues is supposed to be given. The argument of the petitioner appears to carry some weight. Further the no dues have all been given in the month of February, 2005 hence it cannot be said that it was very very early to give a no dues. It is, therefore, clearly established that on 28.2.2005 there was not only a charge certificate but also the necessary no dues certificate duly counter signed by the Varistha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Moradabad. No case has been set out in the counter affidavit that any action has been taken against any of the officers issuing the no dues nor any explanation has been sought from the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. 9. No case has been set out in the counter affidavit that any action has been taken against any of the officers issuing the no dues nor any explanation has been sought from the Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. 9. In para eight of the counter affidavit further reasons have been shown for not releasing the pension. First ground given is that during 2003-04 certain audit objections were raised which have not been removed by the petitioner. Annexure in the counter affidavit has been annexed stating that on pages 53, 54, 55, 27, 28, 109, 137, 138 and 145 of the audit report, the audit objections have been shown. Strangely enough on perusal of the Annexure CA-1 it transpires that the objections relate to one Sri Raju, Store-Keeper and not the petitioner. This statement by the opposite parties in para 8 of the counter­affidavit on oath goes to establish that the opposite parties have tried to mislead the Court by placing reliance on irrelevant document. Hence, this objection deserves to be overlooked. Moreover, if there was any audit objection relatable to 2003-04 then the opposite parties should have initiated some inquiry or disciplinary action against the petitioner. There is no case to this effect in the counter affidavit. 10. Second ground given in the para eight is that the petitioner had not handed over certain files regarding purchase of Fogging Machine, JBC Machine of Safai Godown Gulabbari. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner handed over all the files and documents available within him. The no dues certificate issued by the relevant officers is on record and the person who has taken over charge has not written that he has not been given complete handing over charge. The petitioner is in no position to meet out the allegations of the opposite parties who are acting arbitrarily. Moreover, there is no case of any embezzlement or causing any financial loss to the department. There is no case of any misconduct also. Hence this cannot be a good ground for withholding the pension of the petitioner. 11. Third ground taken by the petitioner has some force. It has been stated that the petitioner had not deposited the contribution on behalf of the employer i.e. Nagar Nigam in the Provident Fund Account with interest. There is no case of any misconduct also. Hence this cannot be a good ground for withholding the pension of the petitioner. 11. Third ground taken by the petitioner has some force. It has been stated that the petitioner had not deposited the contribution on behalf of the employer i.e. Nagar Nigam in the Provident Fund Account with interest. This has to be done by the petitioner under Regulation 3 of the Moradabad Nagar Nigam Non Centralised Service Retirement Benefit Regulation, 1998. The counter affidavit does not show that any notice/information was given to the petitioner to complete this formality. There is no letter/communication on record to show that any effort has been made by the employer to get the formalities completed for payment of pension. The representation of the petitioner has been pending with the opposite parties without any action or decision. The fact remains that no financial payment is being made to the petitioner for one reason or the other. The petitioner has stated on affidavit that he is a heart patient and is being treated at Vivekanand Hospital Moradabad. The life of the petitioner is dependant on financial viability of the treatment required by him. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, the claim of the petitioner, his penury position, his old age and failing health and the reasons shown in the counter affidavit by the opposite parties and their attitude, I am reminded of the words used by their Lordships in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 . In para 20 their Lordships observed as under : “The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that 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 any one’s discretion. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh.“ 13. Again summing up the discussion in para 29 their Lordships declared as under : “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 ageing 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. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon." 14. In view of what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the approach and attitude of the opposite parties towards the petitioner who has been their employee for his life time cannot be appreciated. The purpose of law in a welfare state cannot but be to help the people achieve or get what is due to them and not to use the law to thwart what is coming to a person legally. The purpose of law in a welfare state cannot but be to help the people achieve or get what is due to them and not to use the law to thwart what is coming to a person legally. Moreover, the attitude of the employer towards the old, infirm and sick employee should be that of a guardian, protector and provider and not that of indifferent and casual labour who works in shifts and goes back home after completing eight hours of work without a thought about the factory in which he works. Employer has greater responsibility than the employee and specially when the employer is Government in a democratic society and a country like our India, the responsibility increases manifold. India has had great culture of respecting the retired and old. This is the reason after sixty years we call a person “senior citizen”. 15. In the present case the opposite parties have not even decided the representations submitted by the petitioner. No effort has been made to get the formalities completed by the petitioner. In fact the exercise to get the formalities completed by the petitioner and the department should have started six months ago i.e. before the date of retirement of the petitioner. 16. There is neither any inquiry pending against the petitioner nor any other disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him. There is no allegation of any embezzlement nor any recovery for any loss caused to the department. Charge has been handed over to one Dashrath Lal on 28.2.2005 itself. Charge certificate is duly counter-signed by Varishtha Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Moradabad. No dues certificate have also been submitted, yet not a single penny has been paid. The petitioner retired in February, 2005 and now we are in January, 2009. Four years have passed while the poor petitioner is running from pillar to post. This situation cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by the Court keeping in view the spirit of the constitutional provisions and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a socialistic country like India. 17. The petition is, thus, allowed. Four years have passed while the poor petitioner is running from pillar to post. This situation cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by the Court keeping in view the spirit of the constitutional provisions and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a socialistic country like India. 17. The petition is, thus, allowed. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to enquire into the matter and get the formalities, if any, completed positively within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him and make the payment of pension and other post retiral dues payable to the petitioner under the relevant laws for the purpose. This should be done within one month thereafter. 18. No order as to costs. ————