Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Lal Babu Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of petitioner, in short, is that he retired from the post of Junior Engineer on 30.9.2002 but the respondents paid the amount of his provident fund only on 28.3.2005 to the tune of Rs. 8,98,943.00 but no interest on the aforesaid amount was paid from the date of retirement till the actual payment. In para 11 of the writ petition he has categorically asserted that on delayed payment of 30 months no interest on the amount of provident fund has been paid to him.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and in reply to para 11 of the writ petition it is stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest as per his claim on account of his own default. Thereafter, in para 6 of the counter affidavit they have given reference to some orders passed by certain authorities and the first one is that of 30.4.2004. In the entire reply contained in para 6 of the counter affidavit this Court fails to find any reason attributable to petitioner for non-payment of the above amount within a reasonable time after his retirement.

4. Moreover, the amount of G.P.F. is entitled for statutory interest under the Rules till actual payment is made but it appears that in the present case after the date of retirement till the date of actual payment on the amount of G.P.F. no interest has been paid as admitted by the respondents in para 6 of the counter affidavit. Deprecating the attitude of the authorities in harassing its retired employees with respect to payment of their retiral dues and in particular, the provident fund, and non-payment of interest on highly delayed payments, a Division Bench of this Court in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (8) ADJ 553 has observed as under :

“Interest on the amount of provident fund is not only compensatory but is a statutory liability of the respondents to pay the same for the reason that the amount deducted from the petitioner’s salary remain with the respondents and they may have utilized the same for their own purpose hence entitling the petitioner for payment of interest on the said amount. Had the amount of provident fund been paid in time to the petitioner, he could have invested the same for better utilization so as to live an honerable life after retirement in the absence of any other source of earning livelihood . The attitude and conduct of the respondents borne out from the record is nothing but is reprehensible and should be condemned in strongest words. It is no doubt true that an employer for just and valid reasons and in exercise of power vested in it can defer or deny pension and other retiral benefits to an employee provided the action of the employer is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and such a power also emanates from statute or the relevant provisions having force of law. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted “for the people, by the people and of the people”. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own ex-employee who has served for a long time and has earned certain benefits under the rules recoverable after attaining the age of superannuation. Pension and retiral benefits are not bountee but right of an employee crystallized in deferred wages to which he is entitled under the rules after retirement and non-payment thereof is clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it becomes more important for the public functionaries and the authorities to act with better sense of responsibility so that their ex-employee may not be subject to harassment at the old age when they have already