JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to extend the entire retiral benefits, including gratuity, GPF, GIS, leave encashment, arrear of pension from 01.02.2015 to 26.05.2021 etc. which accrued to her on account of superannuation of her husband on 31.01.2015 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Deori in the district of Giridih. Further prayer has been made to fix and extend the family pension to the petitioner with effect from 27.05.2021. The petitioner has also prayed for interest on the delayed payment of entire retiral benefits, including pension and family pension to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.10.1980 and after rendering a long satisfactory service, he superannuated on 31.01.2015. After retirement, an FIR, being Deori P.S. Case No. 4 of 2017 was lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2017 alleging inter alia that the husband of the petitioner got appointment on the basis of forged certificates and misappropriated the Government fund. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died on 26.05.2021. Till date, not a single penny has been given to the petitioner on account of retiral benefits, though the petitioner has been making several representations to the respondent-authorities and hence, with these compelling circumstances, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-payment of entire retiral benefits which have accrued to the petitioner upon superannuation of her husband after rendering almost 34 years of satisfactory service including family pension is only on the ground of pendency of criminal case. Learned counsel submits that after retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the said criminal case was lodged on the direction of the respondent-Authority. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-authority conducted the enquiry behind back of the petitioner’s husband. It is further submitted that the respondents have neither conducted any enquiry regarding the genuineness of the testimonials of petitioner’s husband nor found any illegality in his appointment or quality of education imparted by him and after retirement when it was duty bound to the respondent-authorities to distribute him the hard earned money by way of pensionery benefits, they are raking up the illegality / irregularity in the appointment of the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that without initiating a departmental proceeding regarding forgery in getting appointment and only by lodging the criminal case, which now abates, the petitioner cannot be debarred from getting her right for payment of entire pensionery benefits, including family pension. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 537. Learned counsel also submits that there is huge delay in making the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner at the hands of the respondents and as such, the petitioner may be compensated by way of interest for settling the culpable delay and disbursement thereof. 5. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents has taken a very short point to controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that upon verification report received from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna vide letter dated 20.09.2015, it has been found that the certificates and testimonials of the petitioner were forged and fabricated. Since the very appointment of the husband of the petitioner was found to be illegal based on forged documents, he is not entitled to any retiral benefits and the petitioner is also not entitled for family pension. Learned counsel further submits that taking into account the illegal appointment of the husband of the petitioner, the criminal case was lodged. Referring to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of ‘The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Dhapru Rai, decided in L.P.A. No. 288 of 2020, learned counsel submits that since the appointment is based upon the document which is forged as per the stand of the issuing authority-BSEB, the appointment of the husband of the petitioner is to be treated to be void ab initio. Learned counsel further submits that only the criminal case has not attained its finality, the husband of the petitioner cannot be absolved from the charges and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for anything on account of retiral benefits. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and after rendering 34 years, he was superannuated. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and after rendering 34 years, he was superannuated. After retirement, a criminal case was lodged against the husband of the petitioner based on the verification report received from the Bihar School Examination Board regarding the genuineness of the testimonials. Never any complaint was made during the service tenure of the husband of the petitioner. No departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the husband of the petitioner during the entire service period or after the retirement. The FIR lodged against the husband of the petitioner was never concluded and no charge-sheet in the criminal case was ever submitted against the husband of the petitioner. In the criminal case, the allegation has been levelled against the husband of the petitioner that his appointment was based on forged document. Merely alleging this allegation, it cannot be proved that the appointment was based on forged and fabricated testimonials. The charge of forgery has to be proved in a regular departmental enquiry. In absence of any regular departmental proceeding or in absence of any finding in the criminal case by way of submission of charge-sheet, it cannot be said that forgery has been proved. Since the forgery / illegality has not been proved in a given case, it can be said that the appointment of the petitioner’s husband was never based on forged document. 7. Law is well settled and it is an accepted position that retiral benefits are not bounties of the employers and it should be distributed at their mercy. It is the Constitutional rights of the employees to get retiral benefits after rendering long years of service. The retiral benefits including pension and gratuity are earned by the employees by dint of their long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. The employee cannot be deprived of this right without the authority of law. In the present case, there is no authority of law, which deprives the petitioner to get her constitutional right of retiral benefits. 8. In the celebrated judgment originated from this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. The employee cannot be deprived of this right without the authority of law. In the present case, there is no authority of law, which deprives the petitioner to get her constitutional right of retiral benefits. 8. In the celebrated judgment originated from this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that gratuity and pension are not bounties and it cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph-8 is quoted herein below:- 8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp. 319-20, paras 18-20) “18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the 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 reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh .” It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 9. Similar matter fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Kabir Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 35 , wherein it has been held that whenever the employee was appointed, it was a presumption in law that his eligibility, qualifications, certificates and testimonials were verified and after rendering long service upon superannuation, if it was found a collusive appointment, why should the employee suffer alone and why those who made hay while the sun shine, they also must equally see cloudy days. The relevant paragraphs-7 and 8 are reads thus:- "7. The relevant paragraphs-7 and 8 are reads thus:- "7. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23-2-1972. There is a presumption in law that when he was appointed after his eligibility, qualifications, certificates, and testimonials were verified. That is further emboldened in the present case from the facts that from 1972 till 1999 none found any illegality in his appointment or quality of education imparted by him. Twenty-seven years after his appointment suddenly an issue of the illegality of the appointment is sought to be raked up. He is then made to run to the lawyer and to the Court room and balance his budget for running his house. The casualty is to the education being imparted by him. This Court in 2003 granted liberty for an enquiry. The respondents still chose to sit over the matter. The pronouncement of the illegality of the appointment has been made after superannuation of the petitioner. For what purpose and with what achievement? Even this determination is contrary to elementary principles of law which is so well established by now and needs no reiteration that no man shall be condemned unheard. The respondents chose to do exactly opposite to condemn the petitioner without hearing him. The socalled enquiry which resulted into the order dated 14-9- 2004. it was never considered necessary to associate the petitioner with the same when decisions were taken on photocopies of the documents. 8. If the petitioner was an illegally appointee as is sought to be contended quite obviously it was a collusive appointment. If, it was a collusive appointment, why should the petitioner suffer alone? Those who made hay while the sun shone must equally see cloudy days. If the petitioner has to be denied his arrears of salary and retiral benefits all those in the Government who were associated with the appointment of the petitioner and released all salary to him as Assistant Teacher from 1972 to1999 are equally required to be proceeded with against departmentally or under the criminal laws of the land, as the case may be. The counter-affidavit of the respondents is completely silent on this issue, perhaps intentionally.” 10. The counter-affidavit of the respondents is completely silent on this issue, perhaps intentionally.” 10. Exactly, in the given case also, when it was found that the appointment of husband of the petitioner was under cloud, what action is taken against the officers who provided undue advantage to the husband of the petitioner and they must equally be penalized. Neither any explanation to this effect has been given by the respondents during course of argument nor any averment has been made in the counter affidavit. 11. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of State of Jharkhand & ors. Vs. Dhampru Rai (supra) is no help to them, as the facts of the case are slightly different. In that case, just before superannuation, show cause was asked to the employee regarding genuineness of his testimonials. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner after retirement and FIR was also lodged for submitting false and fabricated certificates for getting the employment. But, in the present case, no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the husband of the petitioner and even no show cause or complaint whatsoever was ever issued against the husband of the petitioner either during service period or after retirement. Even the criminal case lodged against him has not attained finality and no charge-sheet was ever submitted by the police finding the allegation of forgery in getting appointment. In such circumstances, depriving the petitioner to get her constitutional right is an abuse of the process of statutory provisions. 12. Since the petitioner in the capacity of widow has approached this Court for getting the retiral benefits as well as family pension and the respondents are sitting tight for such culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof, they must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court right from the year 1985 in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabham Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 and off late, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 237. 13. M. Padmanabham Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 and off late, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 237. 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the petitioner is entitled for getting the payment of entire retiral benefits including gratuity, GPF, GIS, leave encashment and pension from 01.02.2015 to 26.05.2021 which accrued to her on account of retirement of her husband on 31.01.2015 and also for family pension with effect from 27.05.2021. The respondents are directed to extend the said benefits to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it has fallen due till the date of its actual payment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed