JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Shri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: - "1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner including pension, G.P.F. and gratuity etc. 2. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 19.1.2004 filed by the petitioner (Annexure 1') to the writ petition. 3. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 not to compel the petitioner for vacating quarter no.1-33/11, K.B. Sub Station, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad till the post retiral benefits are paid to the petitioner. 4. any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. to award the cost of the petition." 3. This Court vide order dated 27.02.2004 had entertained the writ petition and passed following interim order in favour of the petitioner: - "Sri Nipendra Mishra has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he retired from the service of Respondent-Corporation on 31.7.2003 but despite seven months having passed, the petitioner has not been paid his retiral benefits likely G.P.F., Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment etc. Further grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondents are not paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner, but they are insisting on the petitioner to vacate the residential quarter which was provided to him during his service period. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the Respondent-Corporation shall pay to the petitioner his retiral benefits within a period of two months from today or to show cause by the next date. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be vacated from the residential quarter, which was provided to him during his service period. List in the week commencing 4.5.2004." 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had died and a substitution application has been filed by the wife of the petitioner, which had been allowed on 27.09.2013. This petition is now being contested by the newly impleaded petitioner (wife). 5. List in the week commencing 4.5.2004." 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had died and a substitution application has been filed by the wife of the petitioner, which had been allowed on 27.09.2013. This petition is now being contested by the newly impleaded petitioner (wife). 5. From the record it appears that the petitioner-late Shri Jai Prakash Narain Sharma (hereinafter called as 'deceased employee') was working as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department and retired on 31.7.2003 after attaining the age of superannuation. During his service he was allotted Quarter No.1, 33/11, K.B. Sub Station, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad as residential accommodation. It is submitted that after retirement the deceased employee had not been paid the retiral dues. He made several representations in this regard but of no avail. 6. The respondent no.3 vide notice dated 28.1.2004 had asked the deceased employee to vacate the official residence. An objection had been filed by the petitioner that as the retiral dues had not been paid to him, he is unable to hire rented accommodation and therefore, he cannot vacate the official accommodation. Thereafter, the present writ petition had been filed and interim order was granted in favour of the deceased employee. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased employee was not at fault and he had categorically informed to the department that in the absence of finalisation of his retiral dues he was unable to vacate the premises. Once this Court while entertaining the writ petition had restrained the respondents not to compel the deceased employee to vacate the residential quarter, therefore, on the strength of the interim protection given by this Court the deceased employee had not vacated the residential quarter. 8. Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition with vehemence and contended that in the present matter counter affidavit along with stay vacation application had been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner way back on 16.04.2004 immediately after filing of the writ petition but deliberately no rejoinder affidavit had been filed for atleast seven years and all delay tactics had been adopted in the matter so that the residential quarter, which is situated at the prime location could not be vacated by the heirs of the deceased employee. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that even though the deceased employee was retired way back in the year 2004 and died in the year 2011 but the heir of the deceased employee had not vacated the premise in question. The interim order granted by this Court was never extended by this Court. He further apprised to the Court that inspite of repeated information the deceased employee had neither filled the requisite form, which was required to be filled up at the time of superannuation so that the pension could be released nor had taken no objection certificate from different wings of the department and huge amount of money was liable to be recovered from the deceased employee. Once the deceased employee himself had not cleared the dues of U.P. Power Corporation, therefore, there was no question of payment arose merely on the ground of his retirement unless the deceased employee had to perform his own duties in making all the payments and clearing all the dues. These were the reasons for non-payment of retiral dues. 10. He further makes a submission that the deceased employee had not only illegally occupied the official accommodation but also used electricity and since his retirement nothing had been paid towards the rent or towards the electricity. As such the department has every right to realise the penal rate and the electricity charges as per the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. He has placed his reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. And another v. V.U. Warrier, (2005 AIR SCW 2177) and the judgments of this Court in Ram Paras Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Anr. {2007 Legal Eagle (Ald)131} and Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. {2014 Legal Eagle (ADL) 1594} in support of his submission. 11. Having heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considering the judgments cited at the Bar, it is apparent on the face of the record that the deceased employee was allotted the official residence and he retired on 31.07.2003. It is also admitted situation that in the present matter neither the petitioner has paid the rent towards the official residence and electricity nor the department had cleared the retiral dues of the deceased employee. It is also admitted situation that in the present matter neither the petitioner has paid the rent towards the official residence and electricity nor the department had cleared the retiral dues of the deceased employee. It is also admitted situation that the gratuity amount and other retiral dues had not been paid by the department. At the same time the respondent-corporation had also not placed any relevant material before this Court to indicate that if certain liabilities were there against the deceased employee whether any departmental enquiry had been initiated or not. In the absence of any proper enquiry this Court may presume that as such no liability was there against the deceased employee. Otherwise, the department was fully aware of the fact regarding the pendency of present writ petition, which was filed immediately after the retirement of the deceased employee. Even though stay vacation application had been filed way back in the year 2004 and the department has sufficient time to initiate departmental proceedings for recovery of certain alleged amount but no efforts have been made in this regard. It is also not a case where the deceased employee was forcibly or illegally occupying the house, even inspite of notice the official residence had not been vacated by him. But once the department had not cleared the retiral dues to the deceased employee, then the family members of the deceased employee had no other option except to retain the official residence. Even no efforts have been made by the department for eviction proceedings in the matter and the reason best known to the department neither any enquiry had been initiated in the matter regarding some alleged recovery of the amount nor any proceedings had been taken before any competent court for eviction of the official residence. 12. Even no efforts have been made by the department for eviction proceedings in the matter and the reason best known to the department neither any enquiry had been initiated in the matter regarding some alleged recovery of the amount nor any proceedings had been taken before any competent court for eviction of the official residence. 12. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances just to keep equity in favour of the newly impleaded petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee and at the verge of starvation, this Court proposes that the department can realise the maximum three times of the standard rent beyond the occupation of the normal period because this Court is not in a position to adjudicate this factual controversy, because as per the averments made in the pleadings it is apparent that the heirs of deceased employee are still in occupation of the official residence and at the same time it is also admitted fact that no retiral benefit has been cleared by the department in favour of the deceased employee. 13. In the case of Deoki Nandan Shan Vs. State of U.P., reported in in AIR 1971 SC, 1409, the Apex Court ruled that the pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the Rules and the Government servant coming within those Rules is entitled to claim pension and grant of pension does not depend upon anyone'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 further affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in AIR 1976, SC, 667. 14. In the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. This view was further affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in AIR 1976, SC, 667. 14. In the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 , the Apex Court has observed as under: "From the discussion three things emerge : (1) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch....." 15. The ratio laid down in these cases had been subsequently followed by the Apex Court in series of its decisions including the case of Secretary, O.N.G.C. Limited Vs. V.U.Warrier reported in 2005 (5) SCC, 245. 16. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Iqbal Singh (Supra) has further held that since the cut of the pension and the gratuity adversely affects the retired employee as such order can not be passed without giving reasonable opportunity of making his defence. 17. However, in the interest of justice, the heirs of the deceased employee would be liable to pay three times standard rent beyond the occupation of the official residence but at the same time the department is also liable to pay the entire retiral benefits along with 12% interest per annum. The petitioner would also be liable for payment of electricity dues for the defaulted period at the minimum rate as if it is paid by the employees of the Corporation in official accommodation in the campus. The entire amount after adjustment of the dues will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the authority concerned. The entire amount after adjustment of the dues will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the authority concerned. It is also provided that the widow of the deceased employee will vacate the official residence within a week after receiving the complete amount towards retiral dues after adjustment from the department. 18. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.