1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3449/2010 GC Goswami vs State of Rajasthan of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order: 7.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.DN Yadav, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 28.2.2009. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the pensionary benefits and TA amount has been paid to the petitioner after inordinate delay of 4 months i.e., instead of paying it on 28.2.2009, it has been paid by 30th June, 2009,therefore, the respondent be directed to pay the interest over the amount which has been paid delayed. The petitioner submits that the at last moment, a controversy was created by the respondents about name of the petitioner which was made clear by the higher authorities by communication dated 11.2.2009 (Annex.7) and there was no controversy in fact about the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents are liable to pay the interest because of the reason that they were supposed to complete the process in time and the pension is not a charity but is a right of the employee which cannot be denied or even delayed. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the 2 petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It is true that pension is right of employee and is not charity but if some time is taken in preparing the pension case of the employee and it takes few months only then that itself is not a such an act so as to award interest as damages as petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner is claiming interest as damages, which is not contractual liability nor any statutory liability of the respondents. The interest can be awarded if it is a contractual liability or is a statutory liability or if a case of damage is proved. Since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claims of the petitioner is for damages then for that purpose the facts are required to be examined after evidence only that whether there was deliberate delay so as to give an actionable cause to the petitioner to seek damages and only after proving relevant facts for obtaining relief on the ground of damage suffered by the petitioner because of the delayed payment,the petitioner can get the relief. In view of the above reasons, this forum is not right forum. In the light of limited argument for the petitioner proper remedy is to file suit for damages where the entire factual aspect can be examined so as to fixing the responsibility for delayed payment. It is not the case as has not been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a statutory liability or any contractual liability to pay interest. 3 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it involves the stake of life of the petitioner as he has been denied pension for 4 months. This is the extent to which one can abuse the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and submit that if he is not awarded interest of 4 months delayed payment then it is a question of life of petitioner. Such abuse are required to be deprecated. The matter of giving pension in time has already been considered in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court holding it that it is the responsibility of the employer to make payment of the pension in time and that does not mean that there cannot be any circumstance in which there may be delay of short period. It is so observed because of the reason that learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatic in submitting that there is deprivation of life of person if he is not paid interest over the delayed payment of four months only. The writ petition is dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-