ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record in relation to the settlement and disbursement of the pension, gratuity and other retiral dues of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/directions directing the respondent authorities to grant the interest applicable along with the penal interest @ 24% per annum on delayed payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues from the date it has become due till its actual payment. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to suitably compensate the petitioner on account of non payment of retiral dues because of which the petitioner had faced undue financial hardship. 10.4 Any other relief/writ/direction, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971 as Sub-Engineer in the respondent department and was posted at Multai, District Betul (M.P.). Thereafter, in the year 1975, he was transferred to Rajnandgaon and was posted at various places and ultimately on bifurcation of the state of Madhya Pradesh, retained and allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 22/10/2005 to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since then the petitioner continued to work on the said post. On 2/03/2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Rural Engineering Services (for short ‘RES’) under the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter vide order dated 28/10/2006, he was posted under the Project Implementation Unit-II Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (for short ‘PMGSY') at Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon. Pursuant to the order of deputation and posting the petitioner submitted his joining on 17/01/2007. Since the petitioner was at the fag end of his service career, therefore, as per rule 57 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules 1976, he made a representation for repatriation of his services to the Water Resources Department vide application dated. 09/01/2008. Pursuant to the order of deputation and posting the petitioner submitted his joining on 17/01/2007. Since the petitioner was at the fag end of his service career, therefore, as per rule 57 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules 1976, he made a representation for repatriation of his services to the Water Resources Department vide application dated. 09/01/2008. Thereafter, again on 23/06/2009, 8/01/2010 17/05/2010, the petitioner made representations for repatriating his services back to the parent department stating specifically that his retiral benefits and pension case will not be finalized on account of delay in repatriation. The petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department vide order dated 01/06/2010 but he was not relieved by the Respondent No. 2 to join his services in the parent department. Ultimately, he was relieved vide order dated 30/06/2010. Pursuant to the repatriation order and the order of relieving, the petitioner submitted his joining in the parent department on the same day i.e on 30/06/2010. On repatriation and submission of his joining, the Respondent No. 3 accepted his joining and was allowed to retire vide order dated 30/06/2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. Pursuant to the retirement of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 issued direction to the Respondent No. 4 for finalization of the pension case and payment of retiral dues. The service book of the petitioner was also sent along-with the letter dt. 6/08/2010 for necessary action. According to the petitioner, despite directions issued by the Respondent No. 3, the pension case and the payment of retiral dues were delayed by about one year and finally, the payment of pending dues were made on 6/6/2011 i.e after about one year of retirement without paying any interest on the same. 3. According to the petitioner, since the pension case of the petitioner was not finalized and on account of financial hardships, the petitioner submitted various representations to the authorities for finalizing the same at the earliest but even after repeated request and despite best efforts the pension case and the payment of retiral dues could be finalized after a lapse of one year, as such the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on the amount paid to him after one year from the date the same has fallen due. 4. 4. Thereafter the petitioner submitted various representations for payment of interest on the amount which has fallen due on account of retirement but was paid after a lapse of one year. In reference to one such representation dated 10/07/2011, a letter dated 2/01/2011 was communicated to the petitioner asking him to submit certain details. Pursuant to the letter dated 2/01/2011 the petitioner submitted all the details as required vide his reply/representation dated 08/01/2011. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03/11/2012 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 1, it was submitted that since the petitioner was repatriated very late on 30/06/2010 i.e. the date on which he has retired, as such, his pension case and payment of other retiral dues could not be finalized thereby accepting that there is some delay in finalizing the pension case of the petitioner on account of the fault of the Respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, instead of granting interest on delayed payment only correspondences were made between the authorities. After running from pillar to post lastly the petitioner submitted the representation on 13/11/2014 for payment of interest on the delayed payment on receipt of which again only correspondence was made by the authorities instead of granting interest and making payment thereof. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in not granting interest on the delayed payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, unwarranted & bad in law and unbecoming on the part of the model employer. The petitioner had made all the efforts by way of representation for repatriating his services back to the parent department but the authorities of Respondent No. 2 was sitting tight over the representations of the petitioner which resulted in late finalization of retiral dues, thereby depriving the petitioner from enjoying the benefits of dues to be paid immediately on retirement. The delay is not on the part of the petitioner but is attributable on the part of the respondent authorities and, therefore, because of such conduct the petitioner has to face mental agony and undue financial hardship without any fault. At the time of retirement there was no disciplinary enquiry pending or contemplated and nothing adverse situation was there because of which the payment of retiral dues would have been withheld, kept in abeyance or stopped. At the time of retirement there was no disciplinary enquiry pending or contemplated and nothing adverse situation was there because of which the payment of retiral dues would have been withheld, kept in abeyance or stopped. As such, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of the dues. As per rule 61 73 & 74, the payment of retiral dues and pension should be made and started immediately i.e from the date on which a government servant ceases to be borne on the establishment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues as the Civil services (Pension) rules 1976, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 as well as Interest Act. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the payment of gratuity, pension and other retiral dues are no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the employees and becomes due immediately on retirement but if delayed the employee is entitled for grant of interest on payment of such dues. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 49 , D.D. Tewari (D) Through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Others [Civil Appeal No. 711/2014 order date 01.08.2014] and decision of this High Court passed in the matter of Shyam Dev Vs. State of C.G. & Others. [W.P.(S) No.5256/2016 order date 17.02.2017]. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1971 and vide order dated 02.03.2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Rural Engineering Services under the Respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 30/06/2010 the petitioner was relieved for his parent department and on the same date itself i.e. on 30/06/2010 he was retired from service. The Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 06/08/2010, issued direction to the Respondent No. 4 for finalization of the case of the petitioner relating to pension and payment of retiral dues. Therefore, vide letter dated 06/08/2010 (Annexure P/6), the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) was authorized for finalizing the case of the petitioner for payment of pension and retiral dues. Therefore, vide letter dated 06/08/2010 (Annexure P/6), the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) was authorized for finalizing the case of the petitioner for payment of pension and retiral dues. Learned counsel further submits that that vide letter dated 03/09/2010 (Annexure R/1), the Superintending Engineer (Administration), Rural Engineering Services, sent the Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 4, which was received by the O/o the Respondent No. 4 on 14/09/2010. Vide computation form for pension dated 08/09/2010 (Annexure R/2), the petitioner informed that he would like to receive his pension from the District Treasury-Bhopal (M.P.). Thereafter, vide letter dated 16/09/2010 (Annexure R/3), the Respondent No. 4 sent the case of the petitioner to the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Raipur. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension Raipur, then submitted the gratuity and pension case of the petitioner to the Accountant General (A&E) Raipur vide letter dated 04/11/2010. Thereafter, the Accountant General (A&E) Raipur forwarded the Pension matter of the petitioner to the O/o the Accountant General (A&E)-Gwalior (M.P.) vide letter dated 11/01/2011 and the O/o the Accountant General (A&E) Gwalior (M.P.) forwarded the case of the petitioner for the payment of pension to the Treasury Officer, Treasury Bhopal (M.P.), vide letter dated 30/01/2011. Then the Bhopal Treasury Officer made the payment order dated 06/06/2011 and the payment was made to the petitioner on 08/06/2011. The petitioner himself opted to receive his pension from the Treasury Office of Bhopal (M.P.) and the matter has to be transferred to the State of M.P. and the respondents have taken prompt action for payment of pension to the petitioner. There is no delay on the part of the respondents and the respondents have acted promptly so that the payment of pension could be made to the petitioner in time. The petitioner retired on 30/06/2010 from the O/o the Respondent No. 1 in the State of Chhattisgarh and he finally received his pension on 08/06/2011 in pursuance to the payment order dated 06/06/2011. Therefore, the petitioner received his pension within a period of one year from the date of his retirement. Hence, the present petition being without any substance may be dismissed. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Therefore, the petitioner received his pension within a period of one year from the date of his retirement. Hence, the present petition being without any substance may be dismissed. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2011 and by order dated 02.03.2006, he was sent on deputation to the Rural Engineering Services under the Respondent No.2 and vide order dated 30.06.2010, he was relieved for his parent department and on the same date i.e. on 30.06.2010 he was retired from service. It is also not disputed by respondent authorities that the petitioner finally received pension on 08.06.2011. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of D.D. Tewari (supra) held in para 4 as under :- “4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.” 12. Further, in the matter of Dhirendra Pal (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 9 and 10 as under :- “9. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, this Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. In the said case, the Court approved 6% p.a.. In the said case, the Court approved 6% p.a.. interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on amount of gratuity, in Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may by notification specify. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to the fault of the employee, and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. In the present case, there is no plea before us that the appellants had sought any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the delay on the part of the employee, it has come on the record that he made representations, whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Banks, this Court, after discussing the issue relating to interest payable on the amount of gratuity not paid within time, directed that interest @ 8% p.a. shall be paid on the amount of gratuity. 10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order passed by the High Court in respect of interest directed to be paid on the amount of withheld gratuity and pension. We direct that the appellants shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due and interest @ 8% p.a. on the unpaid amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the employee.” 13. In the instant case also, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was retired on 30.06.2010 and he received his pension on 08.06.2011 and it is a very lame excuse of respondents that this delay occurred due to the correspondence of one and other department. 14. In the instant case also, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was retired on 30.06.2010 and he received his pension on 08.06.2011 and it is a very lame excuse of respondents that this delay occurred due to the correspondence of one and other department. 14. In the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to pay the interest at the rate 6% per annum on the unpaid amount of pension and gratuity from the date it has fallen due. 15. With the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed.