IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2011 SHRI. SILVESTER GRACIAS ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. Talaulikar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7th April, 2011 P.C.:- The Petitioner has retired from the services of the State of Goa way back in 1994. He seeks to question lowering of retirement age from 60 to 58 years by this Writ Petition which has been filed in this Court as late as on 4th January, 2011. 2. Having perused the Petition, we do not find any explanation for this unreasonably long delay. The Petition is, therefore, barred by delay and laches, in so far as this relief is concerned. 3. However, our attention is invited to an Order dated 4th August, 2009, which is passed by the Dy. Director (Admn.), Directorate of Women & Child Development holding that the Government has decided to give prospective relief to the Petitioner i.e. from the date of the order fixing his pension as if he has retired at the age of 60 years. In other words, the Petitioner's pension would be fixed on the basis that he has retired at the age of 60 years and would be given the benefit from the date of his retirement. The revised pension papers of the Petitioner, who is now a Senior Citizen will, therefore, have to be placed before the Authority for compliance with these directions. 4. It is submitted that despite this order being issued on 4th August, 2009, there is no compliance therewith. 5. With the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused Exhibit P-17 at page 58, which is a copy of the directions issued by the concerned Directorate. Having perused the Petition and the Order issued by the Directorate, we are of the opinion, as far as this petition is concerned, this benefit ought to have been given to the Petitioner immediately upon issuance of the order. The delay in preparing the pension papers and forwarding it to the concerned Department has not been explained at all. The State ought to treat the Petitioner, who is a Pensioner and Senior Citizen and having rendered services, with respect and dignity that a pensioner deserves. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are constrained to direct the Government to immediately process the Petitioner's pension papers, after fixing the pension on the basis of the Order dated 4th August, 2009 and release the arrears and future pension at the revised rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the other relief has been denied to the Petitioner, we are not issuing any direction with regard to payment of interest on the delayed pension, which is ordinarily the direction in such matters. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms, but, without any order as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.