1. The petitioner was substantively holding the post of Assistant Surgeon in the State Health Department, Kashmir. The petitioner remained unaulhorizedly absent from duty with effect from May 1,1977 to March 29,1982 and, thereafter, from September 18,1982 to May 6,1985. After the petitioner rejoined his duties, the matter was considered by the competent authority and following order was passed: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir Health and Medical Education Depart­ment Sub: Regularization of period of foreign assignment in favour of Dr. Masood Alamgir, Assistant Surgeon. Government Order No: 938-HME of 1986 Dated: 24.10.1986 "Sanction is hereby ordered to the regularization of period of absence of foreign assignment in favour of Dr. Masood Alamgir, Assistant Surgeon w.e.f. 1.5.1977 to 29.3.1982 and from 18.9.1982 to 6.5.1985 as dies-non. This period will however count towards his service increments and other pen-sionery benefits." By order of the Governor, Sd/- Secretary to Government, Health and Med. Edu. Department" 2. In terms of the aforementioned Government order, the period for which the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty was treated as dies non. It is further provided in the said Government order that this period will count towards his service increments and other pensionery benefits. 3. The petitioner has retired on superannuation on December 31,2003. The case of the petitioner was processed for payment of retiral benefits. The Accounts Officer (Pension) joined an issue in respect of retiral benefits of petitioner and sent a communication to Director, Health Services, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, dated August 9,2005. In the said communication, the Accounts Officer (Pension) referred to Government Instruction No. 4 of Article 163 of J&K CSR and informed the Director that 'dies non' has been inter alia explained to mean that the period overed thereunder does not count for pension. It is for this reason that the matter got lingered on and the petitioner was, accordingly, not paid the retiral benefits which constrained him to approach this Court. 4. On notice issued, reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. Alongwith the reply affidavit, some documents have also been annexed which include OM No. A/72 (93)-30/Sgr. Dated May 31,1993. 6. Heard leraned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 7. Mr. 4. On notice issued, reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. Alongwith the reply affidavit, some documents have also been annexed which include OM No. A/72 (93)-30/Sgr. Dated May 31,1993. 6. Heard leraned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 7. Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned senior counsel, while referring to the Government order as also the annexures annexed with the reply affidavit, submitted that the petitioner in law is entitled to receive pension and other retiral benefits, but without any lawful justification the same has been denied to him. Learned senior counsel submitted that even on the basis of the material which has been placed on record by both the parties, one can reach to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to receive post retiral benefits, including pensionery benefits. Learned senior counsel submitted that the reliance placed by the respondents on the Gov­ernment order annexed with reply affidavit do provide that period of unau thorized absence from duty when treated as 'diesnon' in terms of relevant instruction appended to Article 163 CSR, would qualify for pension. "No period of un-authorised leave or absence may be treated as extra-or­dinary leave without allowances when a Government servant has at his credit leave. Where it is the intention of the competent authority not to allow the concerned Government servant any pay allowance for the period of unauthorized absence, the said period maybe treated as "Dies-Non" (not qualifying for any remuneration). The "Dies-Non" in such cases shall not disturb the title of earned leave nor shall it constitute an interruption for service qualifying for pension, leave and increment unless it is intention of the Competent Authority that a Government servant shall be penalized effectively to the extent that all leaves at his credit should forfeit or his increment postponed." 8. Learned senior counsel submitted that as the petitioner has been deprived of his retiral benefits without any just and lawful cause, the respondents be saddled with exemplary costs so as to compensate the petitioner for causing inordinate delay in payment of post retiral benefits, including pensionery benefits. 9. Mr. B. A. Zargar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the decision for payment of pensionery benefits to petitioner got delayed as the matter was taken up with the State authorities but the State author­ities did not clarify the position. 10. Mr. 9. Mr. B. A. Zargar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the decision for payment of pensionery benefits to petitioner got delayed as the matter was taken up with the State authorities but the State author­ities did not clarify the position. 10. Mr. Tasaduq H. Khwaja, learned counsel appearing for State authorities, in an effort to persuade the Court, submitted that the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty which was treated as 'diesnon' would not qualify for pension. Learned counsel, in this behalf, tried to place his interpretation on the plain language used in the Government Instruction which was appended to Article 163 of CSR at the relevant point of time. 11. The Government, after considering the relevant Government Instruction appended to Article 163 of CSR at the relevant point of time, issued the Order No. 938-HME of 1986 dated October 24,1986. The Government order is in consonance with the Government Instruction which was appended to Article 163 of CSR at the relevant point of time. The Government Instruction did provide that the period of unauthorized absence from duty, which was treated as 'diesnon', shall not consti­tute an interruption in service qualifying for pension. The Government has followed its own instruction in passing Government Order No. 938-HME of 1986 dated October 24,1986. Any subsequent change in defining the term 'diesnon', thereafter, would not effect the benefit which the petitioner would derive from the Government Order No. 938-HME of 1986 dated October 24,1986. Any subsequent change in the Statute or in Government instruction, being not retrospective, would not, thus, denude the petitioner of the benefits with which he was clothed with vide Government Order No. 938-HME of 1986 dated October 24,1986. The petitioner was entitled, in view of the legal position obtaining at that point of time, to get the benefit of the period of service which was treated as 'diesnon' to qualify for pension as well. The respondent No. 2, in the facts and circumstances of this case, should have not joined issue on this score, neither respondent No. 3 should have raked up the issue in the manner which would not be only against the legal position which was occupying the field at the relevant point of time but would also whittle down its own order. 12. 12. For the abovestated reasons it is held that the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from service which has been treated as 'diesnon' in terms of Government Order No. 938-HME of 1986 dated October 24,1986 would count towards his service increments and other pensionery benefits. 13. An employee who renders service to the Government and keeps aside part of his salary in the shape of gratuity, does so, so that when he or she retires on superannuation from service, he or she does not suffer for want of sustenance. In a welfare State like ours, grant of service benefits, being salary etc a conscious decision is taken by the Government to provide periodical amount to a Government em­ployee after he retires on superannuation from service so as to enable him to sustain himself and his family members for the rest of his life. This is not a concession or favour given by the State to its employees, these benefits are, in fact, earned by an employee as he/she renders services throughout his/-her service career to the State. This benefit, thus, is to be given to the employee immediately after he retires on superannuation from service. The delay in turn thereof frustrates the very purpose for which the post retiral service benefits are to be provided to an employee. In the present case, without any lawful and just cause, the petitioner has been deprived of his post retiral service benefits, including pensionery benefits. The respondents have to compensate the petitioner for causing such inordinate delay without any just and lawful cause to settle and pay the post retiral benefits which includes pensionery benefits as well. 14. For the abovestated reasons, this petition is disposed of in the following manner: By issuance of writ of Mandamus, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of post retiral benefits, which would include pensionery benefits and pass orders for payment of these benefits in-accordance with rules and observations made in this order within a period of fifteen days from the date copy of this order is served on them. The respondents are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensatory costs to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date copy of this order is served on them. The costs shall be borne by the respondents in equal shares.