JUDGMENT : (J.J. Munir, J.) 1. The petitioner's husband, the late Indra Mani Yadav was a Class-III employee in the service of the State Bank of India. He was posted at the State Bank of India, Branch Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar in the year 2007. He met with an accident and died in harness on 31.12.2007. The petitioner, the deceased employee's widow, moved the respondent Bank, seeking payment of death-retirement benefits on account of her husband's services. These benefits were paid to the petitioner by the Bank. 2. The petitioner next moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for her son. The Bank responded to the petitioner's application by their memo dated 01.12.2011 saying that w.e.f. 04.08.2005, the Establishment had discontinued granting compassionate appointment, but in its stead, pay a lump sum money, styled as ex gratia. It was said in the memo dated 01.12.2011 that the Bank were forwarding to the petitioner an application form for the payment of ex gratia, which the petitioner may, within a week of receipt thereof, submit to the Bank, completing all other formalities required. 3. The petitioner says that she submitted the application form to the Khalilabad Branch of the Bank on 13.12.2011, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. This application is in a printed proforma, filled up with grueling details and information. 4. It is the petitioner's case that after submitting her application form for payment of the ex gratia, she submitted several representations to expedite it, but all that she received was assurance extended by different officials of the Bank. The petitioner, being the widow of a deceased Bank employee, had faith in the higher officials of that organization and trusted them for their word. She moved a representation dated 22.09.2012, followed by another dated 23.11.2012, requesting payment of the ex gratia, to which she was entitled. These applications were duly received by the respondent Bank. After a substantial period of this chase and false assurances extended, the petitioner was compelled to institute Writ-A No.12428 of 2022 before this Court, seeking a direction to the Bank to release the ex gratia payable to her and further to consider her representation dated 27.12.2021. These applications were duly received by the respondent Bank. After a substantial period of this chase and false assurances extended, the petitioner was compelled to institute Writ-A No.12428 of 2022 before this Court, seeking a direction to the Bank to release the ex gratia payable to her and further to consider her representation dated 27.12.2021. This petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 01.09.2022, directing the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Gorakhpur to decide the petitioner's representation and also look into her grievance about the non-payment of ex gratia in terms of the claim. It was also ordered that the ex gratia, found due to the petitioner, be paid to her within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before the Bank. In compliance with the orders passed by this Court, the respondent Bank paid the petitioner's ex gratia on 01.09.2022, the sum of money paid being Rs.7 lacs. The petitioner expected that the payment made, being one after a long lapse of time, would carry interest, but that was not paid. 5. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent Bank officials, despite knowledge of the fact that her husband had died in harness in the year 2007, did not choose to pay her the ex gratia, to which she was then entitled under the relevant scheme. It is also asserted on behalf of the petitioner that after moving an application for the payment of ex gratia on 19.12.2011, the said sum of money was paid by the Bank on 19.11.2022, to wit, after a lapse of 11 years. It is the petitioner's case that though she is entitled to the payment of ex gratia on account of her husband's demise in harness that payment was withheld for more than a decade, due to lethargy and inaction of the respondents in breach of their duty. 6. The petitioner, after receipt of the ex gratia, moved an application on 06.12.2022, followed by another dated 17,12,2022, requesting payment of the accrued interest. The petitioner asserts that no decision was taken by the Bank with regard to her claim for payment of interest on account of all this delay. 6. The petitioner, after receipt of the ex gratia, moved an application on 06.12.2022, followed by another dated 17,12,2022, requesting payment of the accrued interest. The petitioner asserts that no decision was taken by the Bank with regard to her claim for payment of interest on account of all this delay. She has, therefore, instituted the present writ petition, praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondent Bank to pay due interest on the delayed disbursement of the ex gratia. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, where receipt of the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2011 for payment of ex gratia has been denied by the Branch concerned. The stand of the Bank with regard to receipt of the petitioner's application aforesaid can best be understood by the following averments in Paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit: “7. …...... The deponent sought the confirmation about the availability of the application of the petitioner stated to be dated 13.12.2011 however, the branch has informed that no such application was received in the branch. Deponent submits that the branch manager has informed that the branch possess the copy of the writ petition no 12428 of 2022 and the annexures filed therewith by the petitioner. The deponent also sought the information from the regional office and the present regional office has also informed that no such application is traceable in the regional office/not available in the concerned file available in the region.” 8. The receipt of other applications was also denied by the Bank, as also assurance given by higher officials, as they are called, by the Bank. It is pleaded on behalf of the Bank that the order of this Court dated 01.09.2022, passed in Writ-A No.12428 of 2022, directs the Bank to release the petitioner's ex gratia, but does not order payment of interest. It is also pleaded by the Bank that the petitioner applied for ex gratia on 10.10.2022 and it was paid to her promptly thereafter on 19.11.2022. It is also the respondent Bank's case that ex gratia is paid after the beneficiary applies for it in prescribed format, complete in all respects. Here, the application dated 10.10.2022 was received in the Bank after the petitioner had filed Writ-A No.12428 of 2022. The receipt of other applications has been denied. It is also the respondent Bank's case that ex gratia is paid after the beneficiary applies for it in prescribed format, complete in all respects. Here, the application dated 10.10.2022 was received in the Bank after the petitioner had filed Writ-A No.12428 of 2022. The receipt of other applications has been denied. In Paragraph No.15 of their counter affidavit, the Bank say that after considering the petitioner's application dated 19.12.2022 for the payment of interest on the ex gratia, they declined it as there is no provision in the scheme for payment of interest. 9. Heard Mr. Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 10. The question involved is: If the petitioner is entitled to award of interest on the payment of ex gratia released with delay? The other question involved is: Whether at all there was a delay in the payment of ex gratia? On facts here, it would be more logical to answer the second question first. This involves an issue of fact if the petitioner was responsible for delay in the payment of ex gratia due to her. This stand of the respondent Bank postulates that a dependent of an employee, who dies in harness, is not entitled to receive ex gratia unless he/ she applies for it. To this end, they have pressed in aid their very comprehensive application form, which a dependent, seeking payment of ex gratia, must fill up and submit in order to be entitled to it. A question would, therefore, arise, apart from the fact if the petitioner did actually make her application promptly or belatedly, if the making of an application is the duty of a dependent of the deceased, like a money claim, which cannot otherwise be paid? Or, it is the duty of the Bank, whose employee has died in harness leaving dependents eligible under the ex gratia scheme, to facilitate them in applying promptly. 11. At the hearing of this petition, Mr. Satish Chaturvedi placed before this Court a copy of the State Bank of India Corporate Centre Mumbai Circular No. CDO/P&HR-PM/ 65/2014-15 dated 27th December, 2014. It would be apposite to set out this circular in all its detail. 11. At the hearing of this petition, Mr. Satish Chaturvedi placed before this Court a copy of the State Bank of India Corporate Centre Mumbai Circular No. CDO/P&HR-PM/ 65/2014-15 dated 27th December, 2014. It would be apposite to set out this circular in all its detail. It reads: “All branches and offices of State Bank of India Madam/Dear Sir (I) SBI SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (II) SBI SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF EX-GRATIA LUMPSUM AMOUNT IN LIEU OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT Please refer to our circular letter No. CDO/P&HRD-PM/28/2005-06 dated 04th August 2005 and e-circular Nos. CDO/P&HRD-PM/20/2011-12, CDO/ P&HRD-PM/06/2012-13 and CDO/P&HR-PM/75/2013-14 dated 13th May, 2011, 17th April, 2012 and 25th February, 2014 respectively. 2. Following receipt of recent communication from Ministry of Finance, GOI vide letter F.No. 18/2/2013-IR dated 5th December 2014 that all Public Sector Banks can have both the options i.e. compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank in its meeting held on 23rd December, 2014 has approved continuation of following two schemes duly modified as under: A. Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in exceptional circumstances (As per Annexure-l and ‘B-1’, B-2'). B. Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment with following modifications: Existing Ex-gratia Scheme Revised Ex-gratia Scheme (effective from 05.08.2014) Cadre Maximum Amount of Ex-gratia Minimum 50% Amount of Ex- gratia payable on account of not fulfilling penury norms of monthly income of family less than 60% of last drawn salary of deceased employee net of taxes Maximum Amount of Ex-gratia Minimum 50% Amount of Ex- gratia payable on account of not fulfilling penury norms of monthly income of family less than 75% of last drawn salary of deceased employee net of taxes Superv ising Rs.10.00 lac Rs.5.50 lac Rs.14.00 lac Rs.7.00 lac Cleric al Rs.9.00 lac Rs.4.50 lac Rs.12.00 lac Rs.6.00 lac Subord inate Rs.8.00 lac Rs.4.00 lac Rs.10.00 lac Rs.5.00 lac C. The dependants of deceased employees falling under Scheme (A) i.e. where death is treated as in “Exceptional Circumstances” will have the option to chose either compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lump sum amount as per the eligibility under the scheme. However, in all other cases of death as also in case of premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years, only ex-gratia lumpsum amount will be paid as per the eligibility and no compassionate anointment will be considered. 3. All other instructions relating to the scheme for Payment of Ex-gratia lumpsum amount shall remain unchanged. 4. Both the modified schemes will be effective from 05.08.2014 and all cases of death/premature retirement on medical ground occurred before 05.08.2014 will be dealt with as per the respective old schemes. 5. Please bring the contents of the circular to the knowledge of all concerned. Yours faithfully (Ashwini Mehra) Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer”. 12. A reading of the corporate office circular dated 27th December, 2014 would show that earlier the State Bank of India had a scheme for ex gratia payment in the event of death in harness, but no provision for offering compassionate appointment. However, acting in terms of a communication from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India carried in the letter bearing No. F.No. 18/2/2013-R dated 5th December, 2014, the Central Board of the State Bank of India in their meeting held on 23rd December, 2014, approved the continuation of the ex gratia scheme, already in vogue, and accepted the scheme for compassionate appointment modified in the terms indicated in the corporate office circular dated 27th December, 2014. A reading of the circular dated 27th December, 2014 would show that whereas compassionate appointment is available in the two exceptional circumstances recorded in the scheme for compassionate appointment, the existing ex gratia scheme revised w.e.f. 05.08.2014, would be available in all other cases of death or premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. Therefore, in cases of death, the payment of ex gratia lump sum is a right of the dependents, who are eligible under the scheme and not a discretion available with the respondent Bank, subject to fulfillment of conditions as in case of compassionate appointment. 13. This Court is mindful of the fact that the petitioner's husband died prior to revision of the ex gratia scheme w.e.f. 05.08.2014, but there was an existing ex gratia scheme, that was always in vogue. 13. This Court is mindful of the fact that the petitioner's husband died prior to revision of the ex gratia scheme w.e.f. 05.08.2014, but there was an existing ex gratia scheme, that was always in vogue. It was, therefore, the duty of the respondent Bank to have ensured that the petitioner, upon the demise of her husband, was facilitated in submitting her application for the award of ex gratia lump sum. The respondents cannot be heard to say that because the petitioner did not proactively assert her claim when they sent her the ex gratia payment form, her entitlement to receive it would commence when she actually made the application. In fact, the petitioner's entitlement to receive the ex gratia lump sum is not at all dependent upon the petitioner, or for that matter, any other dependent of the deceased employee, filling up the prescribed form; the right accrues upon the death in harness of an employee, whose dependent is entitled under the scheme (revised or pre-revised) in force in the Bank establishment. The prescribed form, on which the dependent has to make an application, is a means and mode to realize that right, but never a condition, on which the existence or the commencement of the right depends. 14. To understand it the way Mr. Chaturvedi wants us to do, would cause the profoundly welfare purpose of the scheme to be lost to a mercantile approach. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner's entitlement to receive the ex gratia lump sum accrued on the day that her husband died in harness; not on the day when she made the application. 15. This takes us to the other limb of the question, which is essentially one of fact. And, that is if the petitioner indeed made the requisite application on 13.12.2011, as she asserts, or she made it on 10.10.2022, as the respondent Bank would have us believe. A copy of the application that the petitioner says, she made on 13.12.2011, is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, a fact already mentioned. It has also been noticed by this Court in an earlier part of the judgment that it runs into 13 pages. A perusal of the application shows also the fact that it carries such intricate details about various matters that it has made us call those details to be ‘gruelling’; excruciating. It has also been noticed by this Court in an earlier part of the judgment that it runs into 13 pages. A perusal of the application shows also the fact that it carries such intricate details about various matters that it has made us call those details to be ‘gruelling’; excruciating. But, it is a fact that a photostat copy of the application, that is annexed, carries the minutest of detail in the application form, all filled up punctiliously by the petitioner with nothing left incomplete. It defies sound and robust logic why a person, who is entitled to some benefit upon submission of an application form to the respondent would fill up every detail of it and then desist from submitting it. 16. There is indeed no earthly reason not to submit the application form, that is complete in all respects, and if submitted, would lead to award of handsome monetary benefits to the petitioner. The clinching fact that shows that the application form dated 13.12.2011 was indeed submitted, is the last part of the proforma, which mentions in Column E, recommendation for consideration/ rejection. Here, the rejection has been scored out and the application with a recommendation for consideration has been signed by the Branch Manager/ HOD. Across the length and breadth of the counter affidavit while denying that the respondent Bank never received the application form dated 13.12.2011, they have not said a word about the signatures of the Branch Manager on the application form, recommending it, that figure at Page No.36 of the paper-book, part of the document annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. The inference is obvious and that is that the application form, a xerox copy whereof, complete in all respects, the petitioner somehow managed to procure and keep with herself, was submitted to the Bank on 13.12.2011 and recommended by the Branch Manager. It is for this reason and the other circumstances that we refuse to believe the respondent Bank's stand that the petitioner did not submit her application form for award of the ex gratia lump sum on 13.12.2011, but did that as late as on 10.10.2022. 17. This brings us to the first of the two questions mooted; and, that is, if the petitioner is entitled to award of interest on the payment of ex gratia released with delay. 18. 17. This brings us to the first of the two questions mooted; and, that is, if the petitioner is entitled to award of interest on the payment of ex gratia released with delay. 18. It is urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the payment of ex gratia lump sum being withheld by the respondent Bank for a long period of time, or for whatever period of time, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the belated payment. He submits that interest is awarded to the party for the deprivation of the use of money, to which the party claiming would otherwise be entitled, if paid within time by the party obliged. 19. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the ex gratia lump sum is governed by a scheme, which is in the nature of a concession. All that is payable under the scheme is the sum of money to be calculated by the terms thereof. It is Mr. Chaturvedi's submission further that to receive ex gratia lump sum is not a right of the petitioner, like pension or gratuity, but a mere concession, the delay in disbursement whereof, cannot be capitalized upon by the beneficiary to raise a claim for interest. 20. The only issue to be examined here is, if the petitioner's entitlement to receive the ex gratia lump sum is one that she is entitled as a matter of right or it is some kind of an ad hoc help, that is extended by the State purely as an act of grace. The ex gratia lump sum paid here is not the kind of ex gratia payment, that one finds the State extending by way of grace or a humane gesture to the victims of a vis major or a railway accident. The unfortunate scores, who loose their lives, say, in a train accident, or suffer injury, cannot demand it by the hands of their dependents or themselves, in case of injury. Nevertheless, the State is often around extending a helping hand with some monetary recompense to the injured and the dependents of those killed in a railway accident or natural calamity. These are acts of pure grace by the State, where the payment made to victims is ex gratia in the true sense of the term. Nevertheless, the State is often around extending a helping hand with some monetary recompense to the injured and the dependents of those killed in a railway accident or natural calamity. These are acts of pure grace by the State, where the payment made to victims is ex gratia in the true sense of the term. There is no right to it nor a law to provide for it. The ex gratia lump sum involved here is completely different from how the term is generally understood. This is an entitlement under a scheme framed by the Government and adopted by the respondent Bank, or one already framed and enforced by the respondent Bank in their establishment, where the dependents of an employee, who dies in harness, have a right to receive a lump sum payment determined in accordance with the scheme, which is just called ‘ex gratia’. The entitlement to receive ex gratia by the dependents of an employee of the Bank dying in harness is, therefore, a matter of right; not the outcome of an act of grace by the respondent Bank. 21. Reference in this connection may be made to a Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and another v. Manorma Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 674. The question involved in Manorma Devi (supra) is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the report, which reads: “2. The short issue involved in the writ petition is : whether the respondent is entitled to the interest on “ex gratia” monetary compensation which was, admittedly, payable to her, because of her husband dying in harness?” 22. As the facts in Manorma Devi would show, the writ petition before the Delhi High Court arose out of a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was twice moved by the original applicant, Manorma Devi, the widow of a gangman with the Northern Railway, who died in harness on 26.02.1998. Manorma Devi became aware of the scheme entitling dependents of a government servant dying in harness to receive ex gratia payment, much later in the day and she approached the Railways with her claim as late as on 02.08.2013. 23. Manorma Devi became aware of the scheme entitling dependents of a government servant dying in harness to receive ex gratia payment, much later in the day and she approached the Railways with her claim as late as on 02.08.2013. 23. Upon her claim not being attended by the Railways, Manorma Devi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2013, that was disposed of with a direction to the respondent Railways to answer the legal notice dated 02.08.2013 served upon the Divisional Railway Manager within a specified period of time. It was also directed that the respondent Railway would deal with all points raised in the legal notice. Be that as it may, the result, after moving the Tribunal in their contempt jurisdiction, was that Manorma Devi was paid an ex gratia of Rs.5 lacs by the Railways, but denied her claim for interest that she had sought on account of the delay in satisfying her claim. Manorma Devi again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2017, on occasion raising a case regarding non-payment of interest. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application. This brought the Union of India and the Railways to the High Court, where they invoked the writ jurisdiction against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting interest on the delayed payment of ex gratia to Manorma Devi. It was in the context of these facts that it was observed by their Lordships of the Division Bench, after noticing the submissions advanced on behalf of the Railways: “15. Mr. Singh, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the impugned order is flawed for the following reasons: (i) First, there is no provision for payment of interest on the ex gratia compensation paid to the respondent. (ii) Second, the respondent has contributed to the delay i.e., she did not make a demand for payment of the compensation till 02.08.2013. 16. We have heard Mr. Singh and perused the record. 17. According to us, both the submissions of Mr. Singh are unsustainable. 18. The fact that there is no provision for payment of interest cannot be the reason for denying interest. 16. We have heard Mr. Singh and perused the record. 17. According to us, both the submissions of Mr. Singh are unsustainable. 18. The fact that there is no provision for payment of interest cannot be the reason for denying interest. We would have appreciated this submission, if there was a specific provision in the circular relied upon by the petitioners, to the effect, that no interest would be paid on the amount, which was to be paid as compensation qua employees, who died in harness. Interest is paid to a person when she/he is, deprived of use of money. It offsets the impact of inflation which diminishes the value of money. In such situations, unless there is a bar, interest should be paid in the ordinary course. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Irrigation Deptt., Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 , articulated this rationale, while examining the power of the arbitrator to award pendent lite interest: “43. The question still remains whether arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite, and if so on what principle. We must reiterate that we are dealing with the situation where the agreement does not provide for grant of such interest nor does it prohibit such grant. In other words, we are dealing with a case where the agreement is silent as to award of interest. On a conspectus of aforementioned decisions, the following principles emerge: (i) A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This basic consideration is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference. This is the principle of Section 34, Civil Procedure Code and there is no reason or principle to hold otherwise in the case of arbitrator……… (iii)……The arbitrator must also act and make his award in accordance with the general law of the land and the agreement….. (iv) Over the years, the English and Indian courts have acted on the assumption that where the agreement does not prohibit and a party to the reference makes a claim for interest, the arbitrator must have the power to award interest pendente lite. (iv) Over the years, the English and Indian courts have acted on the assumption that where the agreement does not prohibit and a party to the reference makes a claim for interest, the arbitrator must have the power to award interest pendente lite. Thawardas [Seth Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India, (1955) 2 SCR 48 : AIR 1955 SC 468 ] has not been followed in the later decisions of this Court. It has been explained and distinguished on the basis that in that case there was no claim for interest but only a claim for unliquidated damages. It has been said repeatedly that observations in the said judgment were not intended to lay down any such absolute or universal rule as they appear to, on first impression. Until Jena case, [ (1988) 1 SCC 418 : (1988) 1 SCR 253 ] almost all the courts in the country had upheld the power of the arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. Continuity and certainty is a highly desirable feature of law. (v) Interest pendente lite is not a matter of substantive law, like interest for the period anterior to reference (pre-reference period). For doing complete justice between the parties, such power has always been inferred. 44. Having regard to the above consideration, we think that the following is the correct principle which should be followed in this behalf: Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (along with the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. This is for the reason that in such a case it must be presumed that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and therefore when the parties refer all their disputes — or refer the dispute as to interest as such — to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest. This does not mean that in every case the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite. It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the ends of justice in view.” 19. This does not mean that in every case the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite. It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the ends of justice in view.” 19. Also see the observations made in Pickett (Administratrix of the Estate of Ralph Henry Pickett Decd.) v. British Rail Engineering Ltd., [1978] 3 WLR 955. “……My Lords, I believe the reasoning of the Court of Appeal to be unsound on this point. It is based upon a fallacy; and is inconsistent with the statute. First, the fallacy. It is assumed that because the award of damages made at trial is greater, in monetary terms, than it would have been, had damages been assessed at date of service of writ, the award is greater in terms of real value. There is here a complete non sequitur. The cash awarded is more, because the value of cash, i.e. its purchasing power, has diminished. In theory the higher award at trial has the same purchasing power as the lower award which would have been made at the date of the service of the writ : in truth, of course, judicial awards of damages follow, but rarely keep pace with, inflation so that in all probability the sum awarded at trial is less, in terms of real value, than would have been awarded at the earlier date. In theory, therefore, and to some extent in practice, inflation is taken care of by increasing the number of money units in the award so that the real value of the loss is met. The loss, for which interest is given, is quite distinct, and not covered by this increase. It is the loss which is suffered by being kept out of money to which one is entitled. Secondly, the statute. The loss, for which interest is given, is quite distinct, and not covered by this increase. It is the loss which is suffered by being kept out of money to which one is entitled. Secondly, the statute. Section 22, Administration of Justice Act 1969, amending section 3, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1934, provides that the court shall (my emphasis) exercise its power to award interest on damages, or on such part of the damages as the court considers appropriate, “unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons why no interest should be given in respect of those damages.” Such is the general rule laid down by the statute, which does, however, confer upon the court a discretion as to the period for which interest is given and also permits differing rates. Nothing can be clearer than the duty placed upon the court to give interest in the absence of special reasons for giving none. Inflation is an economic and financial condition of general application in our society. Its impact upon this plaintiff has been neither more nor less than upon everybody else : there is nothing special about it.” 20. Insofar as the second submission is concerned i.e., that the respondent made a demand only on 02.08.2013, is also untenable for the reason that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to first provide her necessary information that she was entitled to receive ex gratia compensation, and, after the necessary formalities were fulfilled, to pay the same as per her entitlement in terms of the circular dated 05.11.1999. 24. It is not in dispute that the respondent's husband died on 26.02.1998, and, therefore, right to ex-gratia compensation accrued in her favour, in terms of the parent circular dated 11.09.1998. 25. That being the position, the respondent is, in our view, entitled to the interest for the delay caused by the petitioners in payment of ex-gratia compensation.” 24. Here also, this Court would notice that there is no bar under the Scheme in force in the respondent Bank's establishment on the award of interest for the belated payment of ex gratia lump sum. We have already held for a fact that there was indeed no delay in moving for the award of ex gratia. Here also, this Court would notice that there is no bar under the Scheme in force in the respondent Bank's establishment on the award of interest for the belated payment of ex gratia lump sum. We have already held for a fact that there was indeed no delay in moving for the award of ex gratia. We have believed the petitioner's case that she moved her application for payment of ex gratia in the prescribed form on 13.12.2011, which was recommended by the Branch Manager at the relevant time. This Court is in wholehearted agreement with the view on the position of the law expressed by their Lordships of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Manorma Devi that the petitioner had a right to receive interest for the delay in the payment of ex gratia lump sum. We have also indicated our own reasons why delay in the payment of ex gratia under a scheme, like the one under consideration here, would attract the award of interest. 25. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. A mandamus is issued to the General Manager, State Bank of India, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow, the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Buddh Vihar, Taramandal, Gorakhpur, the Chief Manager (Administration), State Bank of India, Buddh Vihar, Taramandal, Gorakhpur and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar to ensure, amongst themselves, payment of simple interest, on the ex gratia already paid, at the rate 7% per annum from 13.12.2011 until realization. The interest shall be paid within a period of two months by the respondent Bank to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the General Manager, State Bank of India, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Buddh Vihar, Taramandal, Gorakhpur, the Chief Manager (Administration), State Bank of India, Buddh Vihar, Taramandal, Gorakhpur and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).