JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Barot, learned AGP. 2. Feeling aggrieved by inaction and delay by respondent in processing the petitioner's case for pension, the petitioner preferred present petition, and prayed, inter alia that: "14(B) Be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Direction, order upon the Respondent Authorities, more particularly upon Respondents No. 1 and 2, in directing them to prepare and sent the pension case papers to the Respondent No. 3 forthwith and further direction to the Respondent No. 3 to release the pension immediately with a further direction to pay arrears of pension for the past years with 18% of interest." 3. On 22.3.2017, this Court passed below quoted order: "1. The petitioner before this Court, after completion of 30 years of services, due to personal reasons decided to take voluntary retirement and accordingly application dated 2.01.1994 was addressed to the respondent No. 2 to accept the resignation after taking dues, if any. Despite specific request made to the respondent no action was taken by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner after completion of 90 days requested by way of another letter dated 15.04.1994 that she may be treated as relieved from the services after the office hours and further requested to release pensionary benefits. 2. The abovementioned two letters i.e. letter dated 02.01.1994 and 15.4.1994 are annexed to this petition also. 3. The petitioner has also stated that several times she has personally visited the office of the respondent No. 2 for inquiring into development of pension case and other retiral dues but nothing was done at the end of respondent authority. After waiting for a long period the petitioner has approached this Court for release of her retiral dues. It is very strange that after rendering 30 years of services, the petitioner has not been paid any retiral dues including pension, gratuity and GPF. 4. Instead of processing the pension papers, the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad City, Roads and Building Division, by its letter dated 03.08.2011 sought explanation from the petitioner to the effect that why she has approached after 17 years and why she has not approached the respondent at earlier point of time for getting retiral benefits. 4. Instead of processing the pension papers, the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad City, Roads and Building Division, by its letter dated 03.08.2011 sought explanation from the petitioner to the effect that why she has approached after 17 years and why she has not approached the respondent at earlier point of time for getting retiral benefits. In fact, the respondent was required to examine at his end immediately upon the receipt of the request and upon filing of the petition as to why the pension and other retiral dues has not been paid by the respondent authority uptil now. Instead of making in-house inquiry to find out what went wrong with the respondent-authority in releasing the retiral dues in time; explanation was sought from the petitioner. 5. Under the circumstances, the responsible Officer of the respondent shall remain personally present before this court on the next date of hearing with all the details with respect to amount payable to the petitioner. Copy of the order be made available to the learned advocates for the parties. List again on 30th March 2017." 4. The said order is followed by order dated 24.4.2017, which reads thus: "Mr. Niral R. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has filed sick note today. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State authorities upon instructions states that the case of the petitioner is under due consideration of the respondent-authorities. The Executive Engineer (Roads and Building) Department, Ahmedabad City has forwarded proposal to the Director of Pension and Provident Fund Office vide letter dated 10th of April 2017 and they are expecting that necessary formalities will be completed within a period of 15 to 20 days. Accordingly, she requested that this matter may be adjourned beyond vacation so that all the necessary formalities can be completed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner's co-operation is also required to complete certain formalities before the Office of Director of Pension and Provident Fund as well as the Treasury Office, and she may also be asked to co-operate with the respondent authorities in early finalization of her pension. The petitioner shall also co-operate with the respondent authorities for early finalization of her pension case. Let this case be adjourned to 6th of June 2017." 5. The petitioner shall also co-operate with the respondent authorities for early finalization of her pension case. Let this case be adjourned to 6th of June 2017." 5. Today, at the time of final hearing of this petition, learned AGP placed on record order dated 20.04.2017 whereby the pension payable to the petitioner is sanctioned and determined/quantified. Learned AGP also placed on record other documents in support of his submission that the respondents have paid Rs. 9,06,627/- towards Pension and Rs. 26,642/- towards gratuity and about Rs. 5,000/- towards group insurance. 6. According to learned AGP, the said amount is paid to the petitioner on 18.05.2017. According to learned AGP, the respondents have paid the amount towards pension and gratuity and group insurance and that therefore the grievance in the petition does not survive. 7. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for petitioner, however, submitted that the copy of the order is given by learned AGP today and he does not have any instruction with regard to calculation and as to whether the petitioner has any dispute or any grievance with regard to final figure of the amount paid to the petitioner towards pension and/or gratuity. 8. On the said ground, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that he will call for instruction from the petitioner so far as the calculation and quantification of pension and gratuity is concerned. 9. However, having regard to the fact that the competent authority has calculated the pension and gratuity after taking into account service record of the petitioner and relevant Rules and even after receipt of the payment on or around 18.5.2017 the petitioner has, until now, not raised any dispute with reference to calculation there is no reason to doubt the calculation, unless cogent facts are shown and that therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the petition since the main grievance of the petitioner is already addressed to and satisfied after the authority passed pension order dated 20.04.2017 and made the payment towards pension and gratuity on 18.05.2017. 10. The Order dated 20.04.2017 is taken on record and the petition is disposed of with following observation and clarification. 11. 10. The Order dated 20.04.2017 is taken on record and the petition is disposed of with following observation and clarification. 11. In view of the fact that competent authority has passed the order and intimation about acceptance of claim for pension and the amount payable towards pension, gratuity, group insurance etc., is already forwarded to the petitioner, now there is no cause to keep the petition pending. 12. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with the observation that the grievance of the petitioner stands addressed and satisfied after the authority has passed the order and forwarded the communication to the petitioner and also made the payment. 13. The petition is disposed of in light of the above fact. 14. It is, however, clarified that after considering the order and the calculation of the amount paid towards commuted pension and the monthly pension and/or amount calculated and paid towards gratuity and/or the amount calculated and paid towards group insurance, if the petitioner has any grievance and/or if, according to the Petitioner, there is any error in the calculation of the pension amount or if the amount paid to the petitioner and such payment is short of the amount for which she is entitled for, then it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking revival of this petition, provided in the application, the petitioner provides sufficient facts, details and figures/data to demonstrate that the determination and/or calculation of pension amount and/or gratuity is erroneous. 15. At this stage, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondents have caused delay of almost 6 years after the petitioner filed present petition (in processing the case for pension) and the order has been passed after long delay of 6 years, therefore, the respondent should pay interest to the petitioner. 16. After her retirement from service on superannuation, for long time the respondent failed to pay pension and/or gratuity. However, even the Petitioner also did not take any action/steps to seek direction or to even formally lodge claim. 17. Ultimately, the petitioner filed present petitioner in 2011 and prayed for above mentioned direction. Undisputedly, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation long time before the petitioner filed present petition. According to the details mentioned in the petition, the petitioner was not paid pension for long time. Ultimately, after waiting for long time, the petitioner filed this petition. 17. Ultimately, the petitioner filed present petitioner in 2011 and prayed for above mentioned direction. Undisputedly, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation long time before the petitioner filed present petition. According to the details mentioned in the petition, the petitioner was not paid pension for long time. Ultimately, after waiting for long time, the petitioner filed this petition. In this context, it is pertinent that even after the petitioner filed the petition the respondents did not pay pension and gratuity. 18. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's request for interest cannot be denied. 19. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner also did not take any steps to press in service right of claim for pension and did not take any steps, it appears appropriate that the petitioner would be entitled for interest from the date on which the petitioner filed this petition. 20. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay interest at the applicable rate payable on Fixed Deposit by State Bank of India for the period from date of the petition till the date of actual payment. 21. With aforesaid direction and clarification, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.