JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the Tapi District Panchayat – original respondent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.08.2023 in Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to direct the respondent – present appellant to give 18% interest on the retirement benefits to the respondent – original petitioner from 30.10.2004 till the actual date of payment which was 10.11.2015. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent No.1 – original petitioner was entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the inquiry against the husband of the petitioner was dropped i.e. on 30.10.2004 till the actual payment of retirement benefits have been made on 10.11.2015. Further it was directed that if such payment was not made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the respondent No.1 – original petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is this direction which are challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The background of the facts which has led writ petition before the Court is that the husband of present respondent – original petitioner was working as Talati-cum-Mantri under the District Panchayat at Tapi. Her husband was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1986 after completing more than 33 years of service and was entitled for 100% retirement dues. A criminal case was filed against him being Criminal Case No.1282 of 1985 in which he was acquitted by judgment and order dated 11.03.1988. Petitioner’s husband has died on 11.01.2004 and therefore, on 30.10.2004, the respondent took a decision to drop the departmental inquiry against the petitioner’s husband. After his death, the petitioner made a representation to give retirement dues. The retirement benefits were given on 10.11.2015 and the sanctioned pension and other retirement benefits to the tune of Rs.10,65,380/- was paid to the petitioner. 4.1. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016 praying for appropriate direction to declare that the petitioner was entitled to receive 18% form 30.10.2004 till 10.11.2015. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant. 4.1. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016 praying for appropriate direction to declare that the petitioner was entitled to receive 18% form 30.10.2004 till 10.11.2015. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the appellant has contended that after dropping of the departmental inquiry on 30.10.2004, the petitioner made representation for the first time on 05.02.2013. It is further contended that the husband of the petitioner retired on 31.07.1986 and period of 27 years had passed and necessary service record were not on hand with the petitioner. After the duplicate service record were provided by the original petitioner and after completing due procedure, the pension was passed on 10.11.2015 and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the appellant. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has further contended that the brief reasons, which are assigned by the learned Single Judge, are not sufficient enough to substantiate the ultimate conclusion. That being so, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be corrected by granting relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. Having gone through the material on record, the explanation given by the appellant’s advocate with regard to late payment made to the original petitioner after dropping the inquiry is untenable to countenance. 7. The departmental inquiry was admittedly dropped on 30.10.2004 by the respondents. The dropping of the inquiry was the point of time when the appellant Panchayat was obliged in law to proceed to make payment of retirement benefits including pension to the respondent-petitioner. The appellant authority remained lethargic and inactive. The ground, which is now sought to be canvassed for advancing the justification to such conduct is that the respondent no.1-petitioner made representation only in the year 2013 and that thereafter the authorities moved to treat the case of the petitioner for payment of retirement benefit. Once the departmental inquiry was dropped, it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to give the retirement benefits of the petitioner in time. The payment of retirement benefit and pension is a positive obligation cast in law, for, the pension is not a bounty or largesse but it is a payment to the government employee to be made to subscribe and honour his right. 8. The payment of retirement benefit and pension is a positive obligation cast in law, for, the pension is not a bounty or largesse but it is a payment to the government employee to be made to subscribe and honour his right. 8. Receiving pension is a right for retired employee in all normal circumstances. It is reward for a Government employee who has toiled hard during his service tenure to serve the Government. It is for the authorities to act towards availing the entitlement of retirement benefits to a retired employee. Taking a stand that the pension papers and retirement benefit papers were activated only when the representation was made by the concerned employee or government servant cannot be countenanced. With such explanation not tenable in law, the appellant authorities whiled away long 11 years in making payment to the petitioner of his retirement dues. When an affirmative obligation was ignored by the authorities and the payment of retirement benefit was delayed to such an extent after dropping of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the deprivation of the benefit to the petitioner has to legitimately accompany the interest. The grant of interest by learned Single Judge would therefore be said to be eminently doing justice to the petitioner. 9. From the overall circumstances, which emerge from the record, and the contentions raised in the present Letters Patent Appeal are meritless. We hereby confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appellant shall make payment at the rate of 9% interest within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the appellant shall make further payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified only to this extent of date of payment. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of according. 11. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.