Judgment : Ram Mohan Reddy, J The petition though listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner Revenue Inspector in the respondent-BBMP having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2006, was declined pensionary benefits by endorsement dated 15.12.2007, which when called in question in W.P.No.1753/08, a Learned Single Judge by order dated 26.9.2008 Annexure-A quashed the endorsement and directed the BBMP to settle the pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, within three months thereform. The respondent BBMP, by order dated 25.5.2009 Annexure-B settled the pensionary benefits by making payment of Rs.8,37,001/-on 14.5.2009, without interest for the period from 1.6.2006 to 14.5.2009 leading to a representation dated 10.7.2009 Annexure-C calling upon the BBMP to pay interest on the said sum followed by a reminder dated 28.7.2009 Annexure-D. The respondent BBMP by endorsement dated 17.8.2009 Annexure-E declined the request of the petitioner, and hence, this writ petition. 3. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and examined the endorsement declining the petitioner’s request for interest on pensionary benefits for the period from 1.6.2006 to 31.5.2009, does not animate reasons. Sri Rangaswamy, Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the only reason to decline interest is that when the terminal benefits were to be paid the petitioner’s wife claiming to have filed a petition before the Family Court against the petitioner requested not to make the payment. To a question as to whether there was any order of the Family Court prohibiting the BBMP from disbursing the amounts, Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no such direction was issued. 4. The fact that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits is not in dispute and that the amount due therein was payable immediately on the petitioner having retired on and from 31.05.2006, is also not in dispute. 4. The fact that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits is not in dispute and that the amount due therein was payable immediately on the petitioner having retired on and from 31.05.2006, is also not in dispute. The question as to whether pension is property attracting Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India is no more res-integra, in the light of the Apex Court’s decision in DEOKINANDAN PRASAD vs. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1971 SC 1409 = (1971) 2 SCC 330 , whence it was held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government Servant and that the right to receive the pension is property under Art. 31(1) and by a mere executing order the State had no powers to withhold the same. In addition it was held that pension is also property under Art. 19(1)(f) and is not saved by Sub-Art.(5) of Art. 19 and that therefore denying the right to receive pension affects the fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. 5. Indisputably, the BBMP did not make payment of the pensionary benefits immediately after the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2006 much less within 3 months from 26.9.2008, the date of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 1753/08 Annexure-A quashing the endorsement declining to pay pension, but did so only on 25.9.09. Withholding pensionry benefits by the BBMP smacks of negligence on the part of its officers, in the absence of justifiable cause for doing so, since the petitioner having honourably retired from the service was entitled to be paid the retirement benefits, immediately thereafter. Although, it is argued that there was no oblique motive nor did the BBMP make unlawful gain for itself, nevertheless that is no justification to withhold the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. The contention that the petitioner’s wife requested the BBMP not to disburse the pensionary benefits is but a ruse, and is unacceptable. Although, it is argued that there was no oblique motive nor did the BBMP make unlawful gain for itself, nevertheless that is no justification to withhold the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. The contention that the petitioner’s wife requested the BBMP not to disburse the pensionary benefits is but a ruse, and is unacceptable. As notices supra, the earlier, endorsement dated 15.2.2007, declining pension was quashed by order dated 26.09.2008 Annexure-A in WP1753/08, with a direction to pay the benefit within three months, which too was not complied with upto 25.5.2009 Annexure-B. This conduct of the officer concerned speaks volumes of the bonafides in declining payment of the benefits and in fact tantamounts to misfeasance in public office, which is an abuse of power. 6. Retirement benefits are not paid as a bounty to an employee who honourably retires from service. It is for the establishment, in such a case, to ensure that the pension papers of the employee is processed well in advance, in the least, a year ahead, and on the day next, on retirement, make available the benefits. It is undesirable for the establishment to keep the employee away from the benefits and require him or her to make representations or approach Courts of law for directions, Servants of the State, Statutory authorities, local bodies statutory Corporations etc, need to become more sensitive to the issue and address themselves to formulating a methodology, in this regard. The failure to pay the retirement benefits, within a reasonable time, which in my opinion is the day immediately after retirement, would cause, untold of hardship, inconvenience and harassment as also a serious health hazard. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in SRI SHARFUDDIN, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. FAIMUNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING COROPRTION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ILR 2008 KAR 1629 directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount deducted from out of the pensionry benefits. 8. The question is who should pay the amount determined by the Court for the harassment and agony, is it the statutory authority BBMP or should it be realized from those who were responsible for it? 8. The question is who should pay the amount determined by the Court for the harassment and agony, is it the statutory authority BBMP or should it be realized from those who were responsible for it? Although, the respondent BBMP when directed by order dated 26.9.2008 in W.P.No. 1753/2008 came to know of its mistake took action by making payment of pensionary benefits on 14.5.2009, this in the circumstances, supra, by no stretch of imagination is compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner. For such acts and omissions of the officers of BBMP, the loss suffered has to be made good by the authority or its officers. In the facts of this case, there being no justification to deny pensionry benefits to the petitioner, the sufferings undergone by the petitioner is attributable to the malafide, oppressive and capricious act of the officers of the BBMP. In that view of the matter, the liability changes from the authority to the officers concerned. The award of interest at 9% p.a. on the pensionry benefits should not be construed as punitive, but an exception is to be made due to the oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional action by officers of the BBMP. 9. Misfeasance in public office as explained by Wade in his book on Administrative Law, extracted by the Apex Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M K GUPTA (1994) 1 SCC 243 , which reads thus; “Even where there is no ministerial duty as above, and we even where no recognized tort such as trespass, nuisance, or negligence is committed, public authorities or officers may be liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. This is thus a tort which has been called misfeasance in public office, and which includes malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury.” (p.777). 10. Their lordships further observed thus; “The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by LORD HAILSHAM IN CASSEL & CO. LTD., vs. BROOME, 1972 AC 1027, on the principle that, ‘an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law’. 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. LTD., vs. BROOME, 1972 AC 1027, on the principle that, ‘an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law’. 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. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In ROOKES vs. BARNARD, 1964 Assistant Commissioner 1129, it was observed by Lord Devlin, ‘the servants of the Government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always by subordinate to their duty of service.’ 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. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bonafide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. 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 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. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in officers instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. xxxxxxxxxxxx 11. Suffice it to state in the factual matrix the failure of the respondent BBMP without justifiable cause to pay to the petitioner his pensionary benefits immediately on retirement on 31.5.2006, requires to be compensated. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed forthwith to pay the petitioner an amount calculated as interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.8,36,001/-for the period from 1.6.06 to 14.5.09. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed forthwith to pay the petitioner an amount calculated as interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.8,36,001/-for the period from 1.6.06 to 14.5.09. and to recover the same from out of the salary of the officers responsible in declining to pay the pensionry benefits and file an action taken report with the Register General within two months.