ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally since the pleadings are complete.

2. The present petition is filed by a retired Government employee aged about more than 75 years of age.

3. In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents to grant interest @ 8% on retiral dues i.e arrears of gratuity, leave encashment and pension from the date of retirement till date of payment.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is retired professor from respondent No.2 filed a W.P No.2851/2016 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to grant revised pension with arrears and all pensionary benefits including revised gratuity, leave encashment alongwith arrears in accordance with notification dated 3.8.2009. After hearing the respondents, the said petition was disposed off in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P and Ors. in W.P No.12169/2013 . The judgment passed in the case of Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta was affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing the W.A No.372/2015 filed by the State. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench, the State also filed an SLP No.10143/2016 before the apex Court and the same was also dismissed on 22.4.2016. The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to extend all pensionary benefits to the petitioner in view of the notification dated 3.8.2009. It was further directed that the exercise of granting pension, arrears of pension and other benefits by issuing a revised pension payment order(PPO) be completed within period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have paid the aforesaid amount of gratuity, leave encashment, pension.

The same is reproduced as under:-

6. He submitted that the delay in payment of retiral dues of the petitioner is not attributed to the employee and in the reply also the respondents have not stated that the delay in payment of aforesaid retiral dues was on account of the petitioner/employee and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the arrears from the date of his superannuation i.e 31.5.2013. In support of his submission he relies on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Justice S.S.Sandhawala (Retd.) and Others reported in 1994 (2) SCC 240 and in the case of D.D Tiwari (dead) through Legal Representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2014 (8) SCC 894 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of M.P and Ors. v. Ramji Das Agrawal reported in 2013 (1) MPLJ 53. In the aforesaid judgments it has been held that if the delay in making the payment is solely attributed to the department, employee cannot be deprived from the benefit of interest.

7. Per contra counsel for the respondent/State submits that this Court has not awarded the interest while disposing off the petition. He further argued that the petition was disposed off in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.Surendra Kumar Gupta (supra) and in the said judgment also the interest was not awarded.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the identically placed employees have been paid interest.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the pension and other retiral dues of a retired Government servant is not bounty but it is his right. In this regard a reference may be made to various judgments passed by the apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (ms) Binapani Dei and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, Deokinandan Prasad v. Sate of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1971(2) SCC 330, S