AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ application has originally been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant family pension, gratuity etc. payable on account of the death of her husband on 07.05.2008. As per the counter affidavit filed, it appears that all admitted dues have been paid to the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased employee during the pendency of the writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 07.05.2008 and thereafter the total amount of pension and gratuity was finally paid in the year 2013. Accordingly, he prays for interest on the delayed payment at least equivalent to the rate which is provided for in the statute itself. For such proposition learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that in view of the admitted position, there has been some delay but it is not entirely due to the fault of the respondents as formalities had to be completed moreso since the husband of the petitioner who was the employee was no more alive. 5. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the petitioner, who is a widow and the husband having died in harness, is required to be compensated for the delay. 6. Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed off with a direction to the respondent no. 5 to pay 9% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment relating to family pension and the statutory interest on gratuity from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order upon respondent no. 5, failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% on all the dues.