Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of this Writ Petition pursuant to the observations made by this Court in its order dated 1.3.2007, various dues of the petitioner have now been paid by the respondents. Respondent-Nagar Panchayat has made payment of pension and gratuity highly belated inasmuch as the pension was paid in August 2007 and gratuity in April 2008. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the said belated payments. The learned counsel for the respondents could not give any justification for this delay.

2. Having gone through the counter-affidavit and particularly para 5, it appears that for the first time pension papers of petitioner were sent by Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajapur to Assistant Director Pension and Local Funds, Jhansi on 7.7.2007 which too received back being incomplete and thereafter, it appears that the respondent No. 3 completed the papers and sent again as a result whereof payment could be made to the petitioner on 22.8.2007 and in April 2008.

3. It is pertinent to note that for delay in payment of the aforesaid amount, respondents have nowhere said in the counter-affidavit that fault lie on the petitioner. It is thus evident on account of laxity on the part of the respondents that payment of pension and gratuity got delayed.

4. It is evident that the respondents are responsible not the petitioner to cause undue delay in payment of retiral benefits to an employee i.e. petitioner particularly when no fault lie on the employee concerned. Deprecating attitude of authorities in harassing its retired employees with respect to payment of their retiral dues, this Court has allowed payment of interest on highly delayed payments, in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (8) ADJ 553 and has also 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 retired and have to survive and maintain themselves and their family with