Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44303 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27267 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma,Subodh Kumar Rai,Vikas Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. An amended copy of the writ petition filed by Shri Subodh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is taken in the record. Heard Shri Subodh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- State and Shri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.11.2013. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2018, he has been found entitled for pension with effect from 06.02.2016. As per impugned order, the denial of pension from the date of retirement is on account of failure of the petitioner to make a timely submission of his pension papers. In this regard, the respondents has placed reliance on Regulation 930 of the Civil Service Regulations in the counter affidavit. The relevant provisions is extracted hereunder: "Regulation 930. A part from special orders, a pension, other than a Wound or Extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Extraordinary Pension) Rules, is payable from the date on which the pensionery ceased to be borne on the establishment, or from the date of his application, whichever is later. The object of this later alternative is to prevent unnecessary delay in the submission of applications. The rule may be relaxed, in this particular, by the authority sanctioning the pension when the delay is sufficiently explained. 1. The pension of an officer who under Article 436, has received a gratuity in lieu of notice is not payable for the period in respect of which the gratuity is paid." Admittedly, there was delay on part of the petitioner as far as submission of pension papers is concerned. The purpose of the aforesaid Regulation 930 of the Civil Service Regulations is only to prevent unnecessary delay in the submission of applications. The regulation also provides for relaxation if the delay is satisfactorily explained. In the facts of the case, the petitioner claims that he was waiting for fixing of the assured career progression (ACP) and thereafter he immediately submitted the pension papers. This explanation has not been considered by the respondents-authorities. The impugned order dated 31.07.2018 is no far as it neglects to accord independent application to mind to the explanation for the delay is in the teeth of the Regulation 930 of the Civil Service Regulations. Considering the facts of this case and since the petitioner retired over a decade ago, it will not be just and fair to send the petitioner in another round of litigation. Hence, the matter is being decided finally to bring the parties to a litigative terminus. The cause for delay in submission of pension papers as stated by the petitioner is satisfactory. The delay is liable to be condoned and is condoned. The impugned order dated 31.07.2018 is quashed. The pension of the petitioner shall be fixed from the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.11.2013. The pensionary dues shall be released within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in the facts of the case, no interest shall be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad