Pension and family pension are property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. While interest cannot be claimed for delays caused by family litigation or non-compliance with procedures, the State must pay compensatory interest for any unreasonable delay in disbursing retiral dues following the resolution of legal impediments.

(1). The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release interest @ 18% p.a. on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits and family pension in respect of the deceased father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 which was illegally retained by the respondents and to release the litigation expenses to the petitioners.

Facts

(2). The father of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 and husband of petitioner No.2, late Sh. Ved Parkash, was serving as Store Purchase Officer with respondent No.4 and died in harness on 12.08.2014. The petitioners thereafter made repeated applications, and respondent No.5 obtained a Succession Certificate in Civil Suit No.24 of 2014 vide orders dated 02.05.2017 and 06.07.2017 directing release of 1/3rd share each and FDR of petitioner No.2’s share, yet despite petitioner No.1 submitting all requisite documents including representations dated 16.09.2019 and 19.01.2023 and obtaining orders regarding custody and care of petitioner No.2 (in CRWP No.61 of 2020) as well as compromise-based disposal of guardianship proceedings in which petitioner No.2 herself stated before the Additional District Judge, Karnal, on 18.10.2022 that she is in good health and wishes to reside with petitioner No.1 and has no objection to her pensionary and other benefits being routed through him, respondents No.1 to 4 have failed to release family pension and the 1/3rd share of petitioner No.2 and have illegally retained the same till date.

(3). Hence this writ petition.

Petitioners’ contentions

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that family pension is a welfare measure payable to the surviving spouse and eligible children and does not form part of the estate of the deceased so as to require a succession certificate where heirship is undisputed, and therefore the official respondents cannot lawfully withhold family pension and other retiral dues of late Ved Parkash in the face of admitted relationship and status of petitioner No.2 as widow and petitioner No.1 as her son and caretaker.

(5). It is asserted that once a competent civil court has determined 1/3rd shares of the parties in the estate and directed that the share of petitioner No.2 be kept in FDR, and once petitioner No.2 has voluntarily deposed before the District Judge that she is in good health, wishes to live with petitioner No.1 and has no objection to all benefits being released to her through him, respondents are bound to honour these judicial determinations and cannot sit in appeal over them by refusing to process and release the dues.

(6). It is further contended that the continuing non-release and illegal retention of the family pension and 1/3rd share of petitioner No.2 despite clear court orders and repeated representations is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting issuance of an appropriate writ directing respondents No.1 to 4 to release all pending service and pensionary benefits of late Ved Parkash, including family pension and the share of petitioner No.2, along with i