I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired by the State Government with effect from 21st of Sept., 1977 (Annexure P. 1) from the post of District Education Officer. He was not paid his pensionary benefits till Oct. 23,1984 in spite of his repeated protests am representations. Asa matter of fact he had to file an earlier petition (C.W.P. No. 3612 of 1981) in order to seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the pension amount to him and on an undertaking by these authorities to the effect that his case would be finalised within three months from the date of the order, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on Sept. 21, 1981. In spite of this the authorities concerned did not appear to have moved in the matter and the petitioner had to file a contempt petition (C.O.C.P. No. 99 of 1983), It was during the course of these proceedings that the respondents authorities disclosed that they had passed the requisite order for the payment of the pension and, therefore contempt proceedings were dropped on Sept. 5, 1983. As a result of all this the petitioner was finally paid a sum of Rs. 63063.65 as arrears of pension on Oct. 23, 1984. The claim of the petitioner now is that he had all through been deprived of his money without any justification and therefore he is entitled to have interest thereupon at the rate of 12%. All that has been pleaded to deny this claim of his is that "interest on the arrears of pension is not admissible under the rules". This plea of the respondents appears to be too late in the day. It has been ruled more than once by this Court as well as by the final Court that in such matters the defaulting authorities have to be made to pay the market rate of interest on the amount which was payable to a retiree. This is so far the reason as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 356, that "pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment." A similar view was taken by me earlier in Des Raj Pahwa Vs. State of Punjab, C.W.P. No. 436 of 1982 and R.S. Sehgal Vs. Union of India and others, 1985 (2) S.L.R. 285.
(2.) In the light of the above noted pronouncements I allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner interest on the above noted amount of pension, i.e., Rs. 63063.65 at the rate of 12% for the period that amount remained unpaid, i.e., Sept. 22, 1977 to Oct. 23, 1984, with costs which determine at Rs. 500.00. This amount of interest would be paid within a period of three months from today. Petition allowed.;