JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. This writ petition was submitted by the petitioner, who retired from service on superannuation, while working as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior Selection Grade) from SMV NSS Higher Secondary School, Kallara on 31.05.2023. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is regarding the non-disbursement of retirement benefits. The relief sought in this writ petition are as follows: i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to sanction and disburse pension and other retirement benefits payable to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 1 of Chapter XXVII-B of the Kerala Education Rules admissible on his retirement attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023 with penal interest at the rate of 15% on the amounts payable to the petitioner from the date the pension and other retiral benefits became due to the date of actual payment forthwith. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to pay a compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the petitioner and his family by reason of non-payment of pension and retirement benefits under the Rules immediately on his retirement on 31.5.2023 in time at the lowest estimate at Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) with interest expeditiously and at any rate, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; iii) To issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and fit in the circumstances of the case, and iv) To award exemplary costs to the petitioner. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on 23.02.2024 directing the respondents to disburse the entire pensionary benefits due to the petitioner within two weeks. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits were granted to the petitioner on 13.03.2024 and 14.3.2024. Now, what remains in this writ petition is the claim of interest for the belated payment and pension, and for compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner and his family for non-payment of pension in time. The facts which are necessary for resolving the dispute involved in this case are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) in the NSS Higher Secondary School, Koottar. Thereafter, on completion of 8 years of service he was placed in HSST (Senior Selection Grade)with effect from 6.8.2011. The facts which are necessary for resolving the dispute involved in this case are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) in the NSS Higher Secondary School, Koottar. Thereafter, on completion of 8 years of service he was placed in HSST (Senior Selection Grade)with effect from 6.8.2011. While so, the petitioner was suspended from service under Rule 67 Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules as he was implicated as an accused in Crime No. 1116/2016 of Poochakkal Police Station for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. Later, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.06.2017 and thus the petitioner was kept under suspension during the period from 1.11.2016 to 18.6.2017. 3. Later, in the trial conducted, the petitioner was found to be not guilty and accordingly he was acquitted as per Ext.P5 judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-1 Alappuzha. As a consequence of the same, the period of suspension from 1.11.2016 to 18.6.2017 was regularized on 07.06.22 as admissible duty as per Ext.P6 order. Later, as the petitioner was due to retire on 31.5.2023, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application for pension with requisite documents before the 3 rd respondent on 28.03.2023. However, the 4 th respondent-Regional Deputy Director (RDD), Chengannur, requested the 3 rd respondent to forward the service book of the petitioner to his office, stating that the General Education Department, at Secretariat had instructed to get the service book of the petitioner for verification, and accordingly, the same was forwarded to the 4 th respondent. On account of the same, the pension could not be processed and therefore acting upon the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Principal of SMV NSS Higher Secondary School, Kallara requested the 4 th respondent to return the service book of the petitioner for processing the pension papers. Since the same was not acted upon, a further representation was submitted by the petitioner before the 2 nd respondent. 4. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV(C)and XVII-B of the Kerala Education Rules, the aided school teachers are governed by the rules on retirement benefits including the family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits, as applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III Kerala Service Rules. 4. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV(C)and XVII-B of the Kerala Education Rules, the aided school teachers are governed by the rules on retirement benefits including the family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits, as applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III Kerala Service Rules. It was averred that as per Ext.P14 Circular dated 30.11.1999, the Government stipulated that, in all cases, pensionary benefits have to be invariably sanctioned within 60 days of retirement. However, in the case of the petitioner, despite repeated reminders, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were not granted. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, the son of the petitioner viz. Adithyan S. secured 98.25% marks in Higher Secondary Examination conducted in March, 2023. He secured an admission to B.Tech course in the Amrita Institute of Engineering as evidenced by Ext.P17. The petitioner's son was assigned rank No.16572 under the branch, Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) and the fees fixed for the year 2023-2024 was Rupees six lakhs in Coimbatore Campus for the said course. However, as the petitioner was deprived of the pension commutation of 17,36,928/- and Gratuity amount of Rs.10,46,460/- the petitioner could not raise sufficient funds for remitting fees for his son's education and thus his son was deprived of the opportunity to join the said course. Therefore, seeking a direction to the respondent to disburse the pensionary benefits with penal interest at the rate of 15% on the amount payable to the petitioner and also seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest for the loss and damage sustained by the petitioner and his family due to the non-payment of pension in time, this Writ Petition is submitted. 5. A counter affidavit is submitted by the 2 nd respondent wherein, it is averred that, during the surprise enquiry conducted by the Government at the office of the Regional Deputy Director(RDD), Chengannur on 20.05.2023, 24.5.2023 and 25.5.2023 many irregularities were found. One of the major irregularities found was the forgery of certain orders related to the regularization of suspension period of the petitioner. Consequent to this, the inspection team seized the service book of the petitioner for further verification and the service book was taken by the government. One of the major irregularities found was the forgery of certain orders related to the regularization of suspension period of the petitioner. Consequent to this, the inspection team seized the service book of the petitioner for further verification and the service book was taken by the government. In the meantime, the Principal of the institution made a request to Regional Deputy Director (RDD), Kottayam to return the service book of the petitioner and the RDD, Kottayam returned the service book of the petitioner to the Principal concerned on 26.5.2023. Thereafter, the said service book was submitted by the Principal before the RDD, Chengannur for the purpose of inspection made by the General Education Department of Kerala on 26.5.2023. Later as decided by the Government, a detailed inquiry was conducted by appointing Sri.M.M.Muhammed Haneefa, Joint Secretary, General Education Department as an inquiry officer. As part of the above inquiry, the service book of the petitioner was made available for inspection before the Government and thereafter returned to RDD, Chengannur on 13.2.2024 after completing the inquiry. Thereafter, on 19.2.2024, the Principal received the service book from RDD,Chengannur and pension proposals were proceeded through PRISM by providing the connected documents on 20.2.2024 to the office of the Accountant General through a special messenger from RDD,Kottayam. It is further averred that, the pensionary benefits will be released as and when the Accountant General sanctions pension payment order and DCRG. 6. It was after filing the above counter affidavit and perusing the same, an interim order was passed by this Court on 23.02.2024 directing to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within two weeks, consequent to which pensionary benefits were received by the petitioner on 13.3.2024 and 14.3.2024. 7. Heard Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Premchand R. Nair, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. Vijulal, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent. 8. Since the amounts payable to the petitioner towards pensionary benefits were already released, what remains in this writ petition are the prayers relating to the interest for the delay in payment and also the claim of compensation for the loss and damage sustained to the petitioner due to the delay. 8. Since the amounts payable to the petitioner towards pensionary benefits were already released, what remains in this writ petition are the prayers relating to the interest for the delay in payment and also the claim of compensation for the loss and damage sustained to the petitioner due to the delay. In relation to the claim of interest, learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon a series of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was categorically held that, pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Therefore, as there was delay in disbursing the pension without any valid reason, the petitioner is entitled for interest. Reliance was placed on Exts.P14, P15, P25 and P26 Circulars. 9. In Dr.Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another, (1999)3 SCC 438 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, the Government is obliged to initiate process for payment according to time-schedule prescribed in the Departmental Rules and non-observance of the time-schedule is one of the factors which court may take into account while considering employee's request for interest on delayed payment. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted Rs.1 lakh towards cost payable to the petitioner therein. 10. In Poonamal(smt) and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1985)3 SCC 345 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, pension is not merely a statutory right but is the fulfilment of a Constitutional promise in as much as it partakes the character of public assistance in case of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of underserved want. It was further observed that the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government, and that is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. 11. In Khem Chand v. Union of India and Others , AIR 1963 SC 687 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to arrears of pay and allowances constituted the ‘property’ within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. By placing reliance upon the same, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, in as much as there is no justifiable reason for causing delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, the petitioner is entitled to get interest. 12. By placing reliance upon the same, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, in as much as there is no justifiable reason for causing delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, the petitioner is entitled to get interest. 12. While considering the said contention, it is also to be noted that, the necessity to release pension without any delay is a duty cast upon the Government as evidenced by Exts.P25 and P26 Circulars issued in this regard. It is to be noted that, the said Circulars were issued in the light of the directions and observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits. Ext.P25 was issued by taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.9425/84 to the effect that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. The Government has issued instructions to all pension sanctioning authorities and Heads of Departments to strictly follow the instructions so far issued and to settle the pensionary claims without delay. The documents necessary for sanctioning pension and gratuity should be prepared sufficiently early so that payment of gratuity amount could be made to the government servant on the date he retires or on the following day. Penal consequences upon officers who commits default in fulfilling the said obligation are also contemplated in Ext.P26. Thus, on going through the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above which were intended to be given effect to as per the various government circulars referred to above, it is evident that, necessity to release pension without any delay, to the government servant is absolute, as the right to receive pension forms part of the ‘property’ of such government servant which comes under his Constitutional right under Art. 300A of Constitution of India. Therefore, when there occurs delay, necessarily he must be given interest for such delay in case there are no justifiable reasons which can be attributed to the petitioner/government servant in sanctioning the pension. 13. As far as this case is concerned, even though the petitioner retired on 31.05.2023, he was granted pensionary benefits only on 13.3.2024 and 14.3.2024 that too only when this Court interfered in the matter by issuing an interim order on 23.2.2024. 13. As far as this case is concerned, even though the petitioner retired on 31.05.2023, he was granted pensionary benefits only on 13.3.2024 and 14.3.2024 that too only when this Court interfered in the matter by issuing an interim order on 23.2.2024. Thus, there is a delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits, despite the fact that, it is evident from Ext.P14 that the pension has to be released within the outer limit of 60 days from the date of retirement by the government servant. 14. Having found that the interest is to be granted for the delay, it incidentally leads to the next question as to whether there is any default from the part of the petitioner in causing delay or as to whether any of his acts contributed to the delay in processing pension papers. For considering the said question, the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent are relevant. The only explanation put forward is that an inquiry was conducted as to the manner in which the period of suspension from 1.11.2016 to 18.6.2017 was regularized, as according to them, some forged documents were used for the said purpose. However, even though an inquiry as referred to above was claimed to have been conducted by appointing an officer in this regard, the counter affidavit is conspicuously silent with regard to the outcome of the such inquiry, the scope of the same and the other matters in connection with the same. Since nothing is mentioned in the counter affidavit as to any contumacious act on the part of the petitioner, it can only be inferred that in the inquiry so conducted, nothing has come out incriminating the petitioner. This is particularly because, no further proceedings were suggested against the petitioner and in the counter affidavit itself they have stated that the pensionary benefits can be released to the petitioner on getting the approval of the Accountant General. Thus, it is evident that, despite conducting an inquiry, no finding could be entered into against the petitioner. Apart from the above, it is evident from the contents of the counter affidavit that the decision to conduct inquiry was taken on the basis of the information they could collect in a surprise enquiry conducted in the office of the Regional Deputy Director on 20.5.2023, 24.5.2023 and 24.5.2023. Apart from the above, it is evident from the contents of the counter affidavit that the decision to conduct inquiry was taken on the basis of the information they could collect in a surprise enquiry conducted in the office of the Regional Deputy Director on 20.5.2023, 24.5.2023 and 24.5.2023. However, the said inquiry could be completed only on 20.02.2024 and there are no averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner had contributed to the delay in completing the inquiry or there were any other causes attributable to the petitioner in causing such delay. Therefore, as there are no reasons attributable to the petitioner which resulted in the delay in processing the pension papers, the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable interest for the delayed payment from the expiry of two months from the date of his retirement. 15. The next relief sought by the petitioner pertains to the compensation for the damages which he claimed to have been sustained owing to the delay in disbursal of the retirement benefits. The said relief is sought mainly on the reason that, as there occurred the delay in disbursing the retirement benefits, the son of the petitioner, who secured admission for Engineering Degree course in Amrita Institute of Engineering, could not join the course. The learned Senior Counsel placed a large number of decisions in support of the claim of the petitioner to get the compensation. In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 564 ), the observations made by 11 judges benches was also relied on wherein it was observed that; “92-A. In its dictionary meaning “compensation” means anything given to make things equal in value: anything given as an equivalent, to make amends for loss or damage. In all States where the rule of law prevails, the right to compensation is guaranteed by the constitution or regarded as inextricably involved in the right property.” “122... The Constitution guarantees a right to compensation – an equivalent in money of the property compulsorily acquired. That is the basic guarantee. The law must therefore, provide compensation, and for determine compensation relevant principles must be specified; if the principles are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not compensation” “123. The Constitution guarantees a right to compensation – an equivalent in money of the property compulsorily acquired. That is the basic guarantee. The law must therefore, provide compensation, and for determine compensation relevant principles must be specified; if the principles are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not compensation” “123. … The Constitution guarantees that the expropriated owner must be given the value of his property, i.e.,what may be regarded reasonably as compensation for loss of the property and that such compensation should not be illusory and not reached by the application of irrelevant principles....” 16. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. E.D. Sheppard reported in AIR 1963 SC 1343 , a four judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that; “8. ….As Romer, L.J. Said in Henry v. Foster (1932) 16 Tax Cas 605 at p. 634 compensation for loss of office or employment is a well-known term; it means a payment to the holder of an office as compensation for being deprived of profits to which as between himself and his employer he would, but for an act of deprivation by his employer or some third party such as the Legislature, have been entitled. It should be obvious that when the deprivation is by the Legislature, there can be no question of liability or compellability to pay damages at law. The emphasis is on the act of deprivation – which may or may not give rise to liability at law.....” 17. However, even though the petitioner may be entitled for compensation, the question that arises here is whether the reasons which are highlighted in this writ petition, as the cause of action for claiming compensation for the loss of damages, can be considered in a writ proceeding. As mentioned above, the loss and damage are claimed to have been sustained by the petitioner as his son could not secure his admission in an Engineering college due to non-payment of fees in time, which, in turn, was due to lack of availability of the funds as the petitioner did not receive pensionary benefits in time. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that, those are questions of fact which have to be proved and established by the petitioner by adducing evidence. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that, those are questions of fact which have to be proved and established by the petitioner by adducing evidence. To be precise, the questions as to whether the petitioner's son failed to secure admission, whether the failure to secure admission was directly related to the non payment of fees, whether the non payment of fees was owing to the non release of the pensionary benefits etc., are the matters to be proved by the petitioner. Such proof can be examined only by a competent civil court and such exercise is not at all contemplated in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Besides, the extent of damage sustained to the petitioner on account of the delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits, so far as it relates to the denial of admission of the petitioner's son to an educational institution, is also a matter which can be determined only after taking evidence. Therefore, I do not find that the relief sought by the petitioner for compensation for loss and damage sustained to him on account of the above, can be adjudicated in this proceedings. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 4 to grant interest to the petitioner for the belated payment of pension at the rate of 6% per annum for the period from 31.7.2023 onwards (the date after expiry of two months from the date of retirement) till 13.3.2024 and 14.3.2024 in respect of the respective payments received. The said amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As far as the relief sought by the petitioner for damages are concerned, it is for the petitioner to claim the same by approaching a competent civil court and the said relief is therefore declined without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate such proceedings.