By the Court.—Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

2. The dispute relates to non payment of retiral dues. In para 11 of Supplementary-affidavit, petitioner has explained unpaid dues as under:

(a) Salary for the period of:

(i) 1.11.1989 to 7.7.1990 (8 months 7 days)

(ii) 1.1.1980 to 30.4.1988 (4 months)

(iii) 1.8.1988 to 15.11.1988 (3 months)

(iv) Increment dues payable on 1.6.1986, 1.6.1989, 1.6.1990, 1.6.1997, 1.6.1998, 1.6.1993 and other legal dues.

(b) death-cum-retirement gratuity.

(c) Commuted value of authentic formation of pension.

(d) Leave encasement for earned leave.

(e) saving element of group insurance.

(f) 10 % G.P. Funds

(g) 6th Pay Commission in the monthly Pension.

3. In para 10 of Supplementary Counter-affidavit, respondents have stated that all the payments stated in para 11 of Supplementary-affidavit have been paid except 10 per cent G.P.F.

4. We do not find any justification for non payment of 10 per cent G.P.F. particularly when petitioner has retired on 31.10.1994. Withholding of amount of G.P.F. for the last 21 and more years is patently illegal and for this reason respondents are liable to compensate petitioner by paying appropriate interest.

5. Time and again, this Court has expressed its concern and many a time has taken serious view, imposing penal interest and exemplary cost on the employer and other authorities responsible for delay in payment of retiral dues which is a fundamental right of employee concerned within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution, yet has not resulted in improvement. The employer and other authorities, responsible for such payment, are unabatedly going on causing a constant harassment to the poor retired employees taking advantage of their helplessness. This is really unfortunate and shameful.

6. Apparently, delay in payment of 10 per cent of G.P.F. to the petitioner is without any authority of law. It has caused only due to their own conjunctures and surmises and for non statutory alleged practice and bottleneck created thereby. This kind of practice perhaps observed to harass a poor retired employee. In the absence of any other valid reason shown by learned counsel for respondents, this Court is justified to infer as above. Such approach cannot be approved or condoned but deserve to be castigated and condemned in the strongest words.

7. A system controlled by bureaucrats can create wrangles to device something which is formulated by policy makers for the benefit of the citizen is writ large from this case. A beneficial scheme made for social welfare of old and retired employees, can be twisted by the system creating a nightmare to retired employees, as is quite evident. The constitutional obligation though pen down to reach the people but Executive, habitual of remaining static or move slow or no movement at all, can render such scheme quite ineffective and inoperative. Something due today may not be available to a person right in time. It is like a person starving today is assured food to be provide after a month or two by which time he may die of hunger or the foodstuff itself may rot. If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be. The pain and torture faced by retired employee and his family, in such circumstances, can be easily visualised and felt but cannot be assessed in the same way only those who really suffer, know it. This pain and humiliation cannot be compensated in terms of money.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents simply tried to shift responsibility of delayed payment of retiral benefits to petitioner but the fact remain undenied that delay is wholly unreasonable. The petitioner, a retired employee, had no role whatsoever except of suffering the cause.

9. Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such d