The disbursement of pension and retirement benefits should not be treated as a matter of bounty but are valuable rights and property, and any delay in settlement or disbursement thereof must be compensated with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General and Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, learned AC to learned SC-11 for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for following relief(s):-

“1. That this writ application is being preferred on behalf of the petitioner above named for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for seeking the following reliefs:-

i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for commanding the respondents to pay the arrear of the pension of the amount Rs. 10,07033.00 along with statutory and penal interest for the period from 01.03.2009 to Jun, 2017 to the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee Late Raj Nandan Paswan.

ii) For issuance of writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for commanding the respondents particularly the respondent No. 2 to grant sanction of the aforesaid pension amount along with statutory and penal interest in favour of the petitioner.

iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The husband of the petitioner namely, Late Raj Nandan Paswan was appointed on the post of Correspondence Clerk on 27.05.1968 and retired on 28.02.2009. After retirement, the husband of the petitioner was paid all the retiral dues but pension and gratuity were paid to him only in the year 2017 though the petitioner had retired on 28.02.2009.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved for non payment of interest on the amount of pension for the delay caused in fixing the pension. The petitioner had requested and demanded to pay her arrears of pension amounting to Rs. 10,07033/-along with statutory interest as well as penal interest for the aforesaid period i.e. 01.03.2009 to June, 2017. The total amount of arrears of pension was paid to the petitioner, however, statutory and penal interest for the aforesaid period was not calculated and paid to the petitioner. The Accountant General had made communication to the Director, Dam Suraksha Prakost, Water Resources Department, Water Resources Bhawan, Block-B, Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Patna-2 requesting them to make available the departmental sanction in the light of Bihar Treasury Code-2011 Rules 239 and 241 (II) and the arrears of calculation chart was received from the treasury vide Letter No. 389 dated 28.07.2017, which has been brought on record by the Accountant General in their counter affidavit. Thereafter, several communications were made and the petitioner was finally paid the arrears in the year 2019 as the said date of payment has not been brought on record.

5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment of arrears has been made to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner thus remains for payment of interest on account of delayed payment made to the petitioner as well as on the arrears of pension which was made only in the year 2019.

6. Now, the petitioner has restricted his relief only with respect to payment of interest on the arrears amount which was paid to him in the year 2019.

7. The petitioner has made specific statement that her husband was seriously ill and no such steps were taken during his lifetime and same be considered sympathetically.

8. Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, learned AC to learned SC11 for the State submitted that petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest for inaction of the husband of the petitioner or on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that soon after the request made by the husband of the petitioner on 12.11.2009, No Dues Certificate was issued to the Treasury Officer on 18.12.2009. Thereafter, the respondent again made a communication dated 21.05.2010 requesting the husband of the petitioner to submit necessary information for revising his salary with effect from 01.01.2006 in terms of the s