VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who had initially joined as Lady Education Organiser in September 1959 and had been holding number of posts such as Lady Nutrition Extension Officer in Panchayat Samiti Sawai Madhopur from 1965 to 1979 and again in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. She was transferred to the Directorate of Women, Child and Nutrition Department in the year 1986. She had attained the age of superannuation and was, therefore, superannuated on 30. 6. 1988 vide Annexure-4. Ever since her retirement in the year 1988, her retiral benefits including pension have not been decided. It is stated by the petitioner that even though about a period of 10 years had passed and despite the fact that she had been running from pillar to post to get her case decided, she had to meet the cold attitude of the departmental authorities. Her husband who was heart patient and suffered paralysis also died in January 1993. She could not arrange proper treatment for her husband. She has attached the representations made as Annexures 5, 6 and 7. She did receive some reply vide Annexures 8, 9 and 10. Annexure 8 has been issued by the Child Development Project Officer whereby he has asked for certain record from certain officer. Similarly vide other latter efforts were being made by one or the other office with a request to send the record so that the pension matter be decided.
(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is admitted that the petitioner had retired in June, 1988. It is stated that the answering respondents have been writing to the concerned Panchayat Samiti etc. for sending the service record of the petitioner for preparation of the pension case and for the reason that certain leave was not regularised by the department and the matter was pending consideration, no pension was finalised. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had clearly pleaded in para 7 that the delay has been caused because of the non- action of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have also filed the written statement. The facts are not disputed. It was admitted by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the pension has not been paid. The reasons for non-deciding of the pension case as narrated by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are that the service record of the petitioner was sent to Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sumerpur in June 1983 for payment of arrears of pay, re-fixation of pay and revised LPC through petitioner herself. However, it is admitted that the petitioner had herself brought the record in January 1992, but the same was not properly verified and she was asked to get her record verified which she could only get it done in the year 1994 and thus it is stated that the action could only be taken after June 1994. It is further stated that from the period starting from 1968 to 1982 there was certain leave which was availed by the petitioner on different dates and the leave was regularised only in July 1996 i. e. after 8 years of the retirement of the petitioner and because of the above-said narration, it is stated by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that there is no delay on the part of the answering respondent. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the record was with the department and it was none of the duty of the petitioner to run from pillar to post for obtaining the record or getting the same verified. It is stated that right from 1988 to 1995 the petitioner had been requesting the Regional Deputy Director and other officers about her payment and salary and pensionary benefits. It is denied that she had not taken up the case immediately or that she had not claimed the pension immediately on retirement. The case had earlier come up before me on 20. 5. 1998 and for the reasons that the pension matter of the petitioner was not being decided even though 10 years have passed, the concerned officers were directed to appear in the court. An undertaking was given that an affidavit would be filed in regard to the circumstances as to why the pension and other benefits were not sanctioned immediately on retirement. Today in the court a letter has been produced on record that the PPO in regard to the pension has been sanctioned only two days back i. e. on 8. 7. 1998. A photo-stat copy of the Pension Payment Order has been placed on record as C-1 on the file by me.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the pension case has now been decided o n ly when the court had directed the responsible officer to file the affidavit causing the delay of pension and thus the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed pension and other retrial benefits. After going through the pleadings of the parties, it is very clear that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had clearly stated that the pension has been delayed because of the fault of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had taken a plea that the petitioner had not got her record verified properly and it was only in June 1994 that the petitioner herself was able to get her record verified i. e. after six years of her retirement. No explanation has been submitted as to why after June 1994 the case could not be decided and as to why the pension could not be paid. The petitioner who must have retired at the age of 58 years had to suffer for 10 years and must have reached the age of 67 years or 68 years when she had filed the present writ petition. It is the utmost duty of the employer to decide the pension case of the employee who superannuates. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and also by the Apex Court that the pension case of the employee who is at the verge of superannuation should be initiated much before the actual retirement date and if any record is to be collected or corrected or regularised, the same should be done before the date of retirement. it has also been repeatedly observed that it is none of the duty of the retiring official to run from pillar to post to get his record verified or to obtain certificates of the record which record is in the custody of the department itself. It has also been repeatedly held that in any case if the retiral benefits are not paid within 60 days of the retirement, the retiring officer shall be entitled to interest. ;