Pension and gratuity are valuable rights, and any delay in their disbursement must be penalized with the payment of interest. Government officials should be held accountable for any loss sustained due to their culpable lapses.

The writ petitioner while he was serving as Head Assistant of the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil), Tinsukia, retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.81. But till date his pension, leave salary and other pensionery benefits have not been paid. So, the petitioner has approached us for invoking our writ Jurisdiction.

2. We have heard Mr. C.K.S. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Government-Advocate, Assam.

3. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of the Supreme Court, 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. This settled law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in AIR 1985 SC 356. Their Lordships further expressed that it is for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensape the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help (sic) generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public.

4. In O.P.Gupta vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 328, at paragraph 24 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as follows:

"Normally, this Court as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension ...."

5. It is also the declared policy of the Government that on the date a person retires from service or on the following day his pe­nsion and other pensionery benefits should be given. Accordingly, from time to time the Government of India has issued suitable ins­tructions to the State Governments and consequently the Government of Assam has also issued direction regarding procedure to be follow­ed so that pensioners are not harassed and they get their pension and pensionery benefits immediately on retirement. Such directions include advance action for this purpose to be taken two years before the date of retirement of a Government employee.

6. In the light of the above settled position of law and instructions issued by the Government, let us now consider the case in hand.

7. According to the petitioner he had put in 37½ years of co­ntinuous service before retirement at the age of 58 years. His date of retirement on superannuation was duly communicated to him by respondent No.5 namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh on 19.12.80 and in the said letter the writ petitioner was directed to submit his pension papers which he did. Subsequent, by letter dated 30th July, 1984, vide Annexure-'D' to the petition, the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil), Tinsukia again informed the petitioner to submit pension papers accompanied by certain requisites and testimonials mentioned in the said letter. According to the petitioner earlier pension papers submitted by him were lost and hence this letter was issued. The petitioner complied with the request of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) by submitting pension papers afresh. This fact is clear from the letter dated 21st August, 1985 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh and addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil), Tinsukia, regarding fixation of pension, withdrawal of General Provident Fund and Cash Grant in lieu of 1 80 days' Earned Leave etc. Even thereafter, the authorities did not take any action. The Government Pensioners' Association, Assam by letter dated August 30, 1990 requested the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam to settle the cases of pension of the petitioner and another person. From this fact, it is clear that though the petitioner performed his part of duty, his pension has