JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri R.B. Singhal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh counsel for respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to release Rs. One Lac withheld by respondents, forthwith, alongwith interest and also to pay interest on Rs. 1,56,825/- which was payable on 1.2.1997, but actually paid, highly belatedly, i.e. on 1.5.2002. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that, petitioner was appointed as Deputy Librarian in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘’University’) and after attaining age of superannuation retired from the post of Librarian on 31.1.1997. The last pay drawn by petitioner at the time of retirement was in the scale of Rs. 13000-500-16000/-. The required no objection certificate from various sections of University was given on 7.1.1997 and even Accounts Department issued a clearance certificate on 3.4.1998 Finance Department issued such clearance on 16.4.1999. Despite thereof, retiral benefits including pension, provident fund etc. was not paid to petitioner for which he also made representations dated 22.4.1999, 29.7.1999 and 23.9.1999. 4. Petitioner’s mother was seriously ill and due to non payment of retiral benefits he had serious financial scarcity, hence requested respondents to release his funds. After hectic efforts, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in first week of December, 1999 but it was too late, since petitioner’s mother died on 25.11.1999. Petitioner then approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 17671 of 2001 for a direction for release of his retiral benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of on 9.5.2001 with following directions : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22.4.1999 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) expeditiously preferably within 6 weeks in accordance with law. If petitioner is found entitled to any dues by the said order he shall be paid the same within 6 weeks thereafter. Petition is disposed of.” 5. Pursuant thereto a sum of Rs. 1,56,825/- was paid to petitioner vide cheque No. 336017 dated 1.5.2002 payable at Allahabad Bank of Agra University but still a sum of Rs. One Lac was withheld by respondents for reasons not known to petitioner. Despite various efforts the aforesaid amount withheld by respondents was not released. Petition is disposed of.” 5. Pursuant thereto a sum of Rs. 1,56,825/- was paid to petitioner vide cheque No. 336017 dated 1.5.2002 payable at Allahabad Bank of Agra University but still a sum of Rs. One Lac was withheld by respondents for reasons not known to petitioner. Despite various efforts the aforesaid amount withheld by respondents was not released. Hence this writ petition. 6. University filed a short counter-affidavit sworn on 31.10.2003 stating that during petitioner’s tenure as Librarian a fund of Rs. Fifty Lacs was sanctioned by University Grants Commission for Library. There was allegation of misappropriation etc. Hence State of U.P. ordered for vigilance enquiry and due to pendency of such enquiry, retiral benefits of petitioner were initially withheld which were subsequently released after retaining only Rs. One Lac. Since vigilance enquiry is still pending, hence said amount of Rs. One Lac has not been released. 7. Status of enquiry in 2012 was not known to University, hence this Court directed State of U.P. to be impleaded as respondent 4 vide order dated 17.7.2012. Despite that nothing happened. Hence on 23.7.2013 this Court passed following order : “It appears that the State of U.P. through Secretary Higher Education, Lucknow has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition vide order dated 17.7.2012. The learned Standing Counsel as well as the Registrar, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra shall file an affidavit giving current status of the departmental enquiry as well as vigilance enquiry conducted by the State of Government as alleged by the counsel for the University. List peremptorily in the week commencing 5th August, 2013.” 8. Pursuant thereto University through Registrar submitted an affidavit stating that University has inquired about status of enquiry from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Agra vide letter dated 13.8.2003 but has not received any information. So far as State of U.P. is concerned it did not respond at all. In these circumstances as a last opportunity, an order was passed by this Court on 23.10.2013 as under : “This matter pertains to the retiral dues of the petitioner. Inspite of several opportunities granted to the State of U.P. through Secretary, Higher Education, Lucknow, counter-affidavit has not been filed. It appears that a sum of Rs. 1 lac of the petitioner has been withheld on the pretext that some inquiries are pending against him. Inspite of several opportunities granted to the State of U.P. through Secretary, Higher Education, Lucknow, counter-affidavit has not been filed. It appears that a sum of Rs. 1 lac of the petitioner has been withheld on the pretext that some inquiries are pending against him. This writ petition is of the year 2002. The State was granted time for filing counter-affidavit vide order dated 17.7.2012, since then more than one year has passed but no counter-affidavit has been filed. As a last opportunity, we grant 3 weeks’ time to the State for filing counter-affidavit. In case the counter-affidavit is not filed within the aforesaid period, we are of the view that in absence of any counter-affidavit rebutting the averments made in the writ petition, the amount, if any, be paid to the petitioner and in future in case any amount is found due against the petitioner, the same may be recovered from Erring official concerned. List the matter after 3 weeks. Learned Standing counsel shall inform about this order to the Secretary, Higher Education, Lucknow within two weeks by fax.” (emphasis added) 9. Still State of U.P. chose not to respond. Hence on 30.8.2016 this Court passed following orders : “1. Despite order dated 6.7.2016 by which one week’s time was allowed to learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions about status of alleged vigilance enquiry, he has received no instructions in the matter. 2. As requested by him, put up on 6.9.2016; on which date learned Standing Counsel shall obtain instructions lest this Court shall pass appropriate order to summon the officer concerned.” 10. Pursuant thereto learned Standing Counsel produced before this Court a letter dated 16.7.2016 sent by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Agra. It has informed that an open vigilance enquiry was conducted. Report dated 27.12.2005 was submitted to State Government finding petitioner responsible if causing undue gain, to book publishers in purchase of books. Vigilance recommend for a departmental enquiry, but petitioner, since already retired in 1997, and more than eight years had passed, no disciplinary enquiry was permissible under Rules, hence no further action was taken. 11. Learned Standing Counsel clearly stated that neither any enquiry is contemplated nor pending since it is already barred by time and cannot be conducted now. Vigilance recommend for a departmental enquiry, but petitioner, since already retired in 1997, and more than eight years had passed, no disciplinary enquiry was permissible under Rules, hence no further action was taken. 11. Learned Standing Counsel clearly stated that neither any enquiry is contemplated nor pending since it is already barred by time and cannot be conducted now. He also could not dispute that there was no justification for non-payment of retiral benefits to petitioner in time and also not to release withheld amount, when vigilance report was submitted on 27.12.2005, making it clear that though petitioner was prima facie responsible for causing gains to book publishers in purchase of books but no departmental enquiry is possible since more than eight years have passed from his date of retirement. 12. With respect to delay in payment of Rs. 1,56,825/- almost more than five years and for non release of Rs. One Lac for the last nineteen years, we find a total lapse on the part of respondents and no legal and valid justification for such delayed payment, particularly for withholding of Rs. One Lac for more than nineteen years. 13. Time and again this Court has said that retiral benefits are not bounty but legal and fundamental right of an employee, being his earned but deferred wage after rendering service for a long period. It is a part of right to earn livelihood under Article 21 of Constitution of India. An employer, for valid reasons may withheld retiral benefits to the extent and in the manner it is permissible under the Rules. If an employee is denied or deferred his retiral benefits for whimsical, fancy and arbitrary assumption or inaction of employer or for fault of authorities of employer, it is most abhorring and condemnable attitude on their part. It amounts to harassment of a person who is now a senior citizen having retired from service but at this advanced age, he/she and family are made to suffer financial and otherwise, for no fault on their part and this sufferance is on account of apathy, inaction and whimsical attitude of non caring officials to the needs and rightful dues of retired employees. 14. Withholding of retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin, if not an offence since no law has declared so. 14. Withholding of retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin, if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment to the retired employee must however be ashamed and feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillar of our constitution. 15. The respondents being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. As observed above, under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees and their legal heirs like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of entire machinery and various powers of statute. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries. 16. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in the people of India. The Constitution has been enacted “for the people, by the people and of the people”. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee. 17. Regarding harassment of a common man, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and others, 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, held as under: “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....... 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...........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 far more grievous.” (para 10) 18. The above observations as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 19. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........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 far more grievous.” (para 10) 18. The above observations as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 19. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law. 20. In Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 , the Apex Court said: “No public servant can say “you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 21. In Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 , the Apex Court has held: “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.” 22. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, AIR 1996 SC 715 , has held as follows: “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 23. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 23. Now, coming to another aspect of the matter, if retiral benefits are paid with extra ordinary delay, Court should award suitable interest which is compensatory in nature so as to cause some solace to the harassed employee. No Government official should have liberty of harassing a helpless old and retired employee or his heirs by withholding his/her lawful dues for a long time and thereafter to expect an escape from any liability so as to boast that nobody can touch him even if he commits an ex facie illegal, unjust or arbitrary act. Every authority howsoever high must always keep in mind that nobody is above law. The hands of justice are meant not only to catch out such person but it is also constitutional duty of a Court of law to pass suitable order in such matters so that such illegal acts may not be repeated, not only by him/her but others also. This should be a lesson to everyone committing such unjust act. 24. Interest on delayed payment on retiral dues has been upheld time and against in a catena of decision. This Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34804 of 2004) decided on 6.12.2005 held: “Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. In the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR 750, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following months. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay panel interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.” In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained.” 25. It has been followed and reiterated in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 328 , R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection, (1994) 6 SCC 589 , S.R. Bhanrate v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 27 , Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 and S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 . 26. A Division Bench of this Court has also considered the question of award of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits recently in Rajeshwar Swarup Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(2) ADJ 608 and, relying on the Apex Court decision in M. Padmnanaban Nair (supra) and its several follow up as also an earlier Division Bench judgement of this Court in Smt. Kavita Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 119 FLR 787, has awarded 12% interest in the said case. 27. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that non payment of retiral benefits to petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. 27. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that non payment of retiral benefits to petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. There was no justification at all for respondents to delay payment thereof. 28. In a case where the person who has invoked extraordinary equitable jurisdiction satisfying the Court that in the hands of authorities of state instrumentality, individual has suffered grievously, the Court, while deciding the matter, can also pass an order of exemplary cost compensatory in nature so that such authorities may not recur the similar negligence in future. In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2005 SC 2755 , it was held that the Court must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasion. 29. The harassment made to petitioner is also writ large from the fact that he was under serious financial condition when his mother fell ill but in that regard also a partial amount of Rs. 50,000/- was released but before that his mother expired. If this is not an action which has to be deprecated and condemned, what else could be. 30. We really find it surprising that all the respondent authorities, did not care whatsoever not only to ensure payment of outstanding dues of retiral benefits of petitioner not only in due time but also showed an attitude of complete defiance and negligence by not responding to this Court for almost fourteen years. 31. In these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the petitioner deserves for the relief as prayed for but also due interest and exemplary cost. 32. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 33. Respondents are directed to release the entire outstanding retiral amount to the petitioner which has not been paid alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On the partial retiral dues paid to petitioner in 2002 he shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum which shall be computed after one month from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. The said amount shall be paid to him within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondents. 34. Petitioner shall also be entitled for exemplary cost which we quantify to Rs. 20,000/-.