Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make final payment of Pension, Gratuity, Leave Salary, Provident Fund and Group Insurance along with interest. By an amendment application the petitioner has also challenged the validity of the impugned order contained in Annexure-17 and has prayed for a suitable direction to the Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the average last salary which had been paid to him on the basis of the orders contained in Annexures-21 and 21A. The subsequent order dated 27-10-1988 fixing the pension and the gratuity on the reduced salary contained in Annexures-23 and 23A has also been challenged with a prayer that a positive direction be issued to fix the pension and gratuity of the petitioner on the basis of the average pay actually drawn by him in the last ten months prior to his retirement, and further that he be allowed the benefit of pension without further medical examination. 2. In February, 1954 the petitioner joined the service of the State Government as an assistant in the Political and Appointment Department. He superannuated as Section Officer on 1-10-1987 after completing 33 years of satisfactory service from the department, now known as the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. He filed applications for final payment of the amount of G.P. Fund and for sanction of Pension and Gratuity, Leave salary and the balance amount of the Group Insurance, Reminders were sent but even after six months of his retirement no payment was made although the petitioner was in dire necessity of money, who had to perform the marriage of his daughter. Having received no reply the petitioner filed this writ application in April, 1988. 3. The petitioner was promoted as U.D. Assistant in March, 1975. After 21 years of his service he got his first promotion. In January, 1980 he was promoted to Selection Grade Assistant which was treated as Junior Selection Grade post. In December, 1981 the Government framed a policy to give two time bound promotions to those who were stagnating (Annexure-18). The petitioner was granted the second time bound promotion with effect from 25-1-1982 (Annexure-19). In January, 1980 he was promoted to Selection Grade Assistant which was treated as Junior Selection Grade post. In December, 1981 the Government framed a policy to give two time bound promotions to those who were stagnating (Annexure-18). The petitioner was granted the second time bound promotion with effect from 25-1-1982 (Annexure-19). After the second time bound promotion the petitioner withdrew the salary which was allowed to him and the payment received between January, 1982 to September, 1987 indicates that he had drawn the salary starting from 1335/- per month in the year 1982 to Rs. 1510.00 per month in September, 1987. This is contained in Annexures-21 and 21A. By an interim order dated 27-5-1988 this Court directed to make the payment of pension and gratuity by 30th June 1988. By another order dated 22-9-1988 this Court positively directed to make the payment of Pension and Gratuity by 4-10-1988, but the payments were not made. On the contrary, by an order dated 28-9-1988 contained in Annexure-17 the department reduced the salary of the petitioner without stating any reason and without any notice to him, even though the matter was pending before this Court and interim directions had been given for payment of Pension and Gratuity. The salary which had been drawn by the petitioner in pursuance of Annexures-21 and 21A starting from Rs. 1335/-per month to Rs. 1510.00 per month was substantially reduced pending the hearing of this writ application in this Court. Even though the matter was sub judice before this Court and the petitioner had communicated a copy of the order of this Court dated 12-10-1988 but the Accountant General issued Authority Slips for Pension and Gratuity on the basis of the reduced salary. The same is contained in Annexures-23 and 23A. This action necessitated the Petitioner to file an application for amendment with a prayer for the additional relief indicated above. By its order dated 12-10-1988 this Court had taken serious view of the matter that even though the interim orders had been passed and the matter was subjudiced before this Court the salary of the petitioner was reduced without any notice to him and, therefore, this Court had to issue notice to show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against respondent No. 4 who had issued the said order contained in Annexure-17. 4. Challenging the validity of Annexure-17 Mr. 4. Challenging the validity of Annexure-17 Mr. Ravi Shanker Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Registrar (Establishment) Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna had no authority to pass the said order contained in Annexure-17. It is obvious from the Annexure-17 that salary of the petitioner was arbitrarily reduced after one year of his retirement and, admittedly, the petitioner was never allowed to be heard before such reduction was made from his salary. No reason has been assigned for such substantial reduction of his salary, which had earlier been allowed to the petitioner and secured by him until his retirement. By this order contained in Annexure-17 the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner has been cancelled which had earlier been granted to him in July 1986 contained in Annexure-19. The said order contained in Annexure-19 had been validly passed by the Secretary to Govt. and respondent No. 4 being subordinate to him, being the Registrar, had no authority to cancel the same. He was neither the competent authority nor had he any such authority to do so. By the said order Annexure-17 the Registrar further asked the petitioner to refund the amount of salary which he had drawn earlier. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners counsel is upheld on both counts: (a) that it was not passed by a competent authority and (b) that it was arbitrarily cancelled without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner by Annexure-19 was arbitrarily cancelled by the Registrar respondent No. 4 with retrospective effect. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that in accordance with Amiexure-19 the second time bound promotion had been granted subject to the approval of the Finance Department. It was pointed out, from the order contained in the file, that the Finance Department did not approve, and, therefore, the second time bound promotion granted by Annexure-19 was validly cancelled. Reliance was placed on internal notings in the file of the department, wherein it was stated by the Secretary, Finance, that since the petitioner had been promoted first in the year 1975 and, subsequently, in the year 1980, therefore, he was not entitled for the second time bound promotion. This was never communicated to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on internal notings in the file of the department, wherein it was stated by the Secretary, Finance, that since the petitioner had been promoted first in the year 1975 and, subsequently, in the year 1980, therefore, he was not entitled for the second time bound promotion. This was never communicated to the petitioner. In the said notings, the Secretary Finance referred to a resolution of the department dated 16th July 1985 find in terms of Clause 2 of the said resolution concluded in holding that since no anomoly would arise in the case of the petitioner, he is not entitled to have the second time bound promotion. I find that the whole case of the respondent has been built up on a misreading of the said Clause 2 of the resolution of the Finance Department (Annexure-24), therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General On a plain reading of Clause 2 of the said resolution, it is obvious that the Government was anxious to remove or relax the bar while granting second time bound promotion to the government employees. The aforesaid bar is mentioned in Clause (vii) of paragraph 11 of Annexure-18 and the same reads as follows:- - Since the aforesaid scheme is meant as an anti-stagnation measure, it should be applicable in case of only such employees who have not been able to get the first or the second promotion, as the case may be. In other words, the benefit of the time-bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were appointed or its corresponding revised pay scale. The benefit should not be made applicable to such employees who, after once Joining Government service have, for any reason, been elevated to a higher pay scale, by promotion, merger or even up gradation. This should require issue of specific orders incase of every employee which should obviously be done only after a careful examination of his service records. It was this bar which was removed by the resolution of the Finance Department in July 1985 which is contained in Annexure-24. This should require issue of specific orders incase of every employee which should obviously be done only after a careful examination of his service records. It was this bar which was removed by the resolution of the Finance Department in July 1985 which is contained in Annexure-24. On proper construction of this clause, it has to be held that in case of those employees, who were promoted from the Lower Division to Upper Division, their first promotion would not be treated as first time bound promotion, if the same does not create any anomaly Thus in accordance with Clause 2 of this resolution if the petitioner first promotion in 1975 is not treated as first time bound promotion then he was definitely entitled for the second time bound promotion and, therefore, the Department of Finance was not correct in treating his case as a general case. On the undisputed facts of this case, the case of the petitioner is covered within the exception created and indicated in the said resolution of the Finance Department (Annexure-24). The first promotion will not be treated as a bar for the second time bound promotion, was, further reiterated by the government in a subsequent resolution of the Department of Finance dated 4th August 1987 (Annexure- 20). It appears that the Secretary Finance failed to notice the said resolution which was of August 1987 although the notings of the Secretary Finance is of July 1988. In view of the unambiguous contents of the said resolution (Annexure-20) the contention of the respondents must fail. The stand of the respondents was unreasonably based on a misreading of the said resolution contained in Annexure-24, ignoring and without considering the effect of the resolution contained in Annexure-20, The sole contention having failed, the order contained in Annexure-17 has to be held as arbitrary. The unfair attitude adopted by respondent No. 4 in dealing with the matter contrary to the directions given by this Court indicates the extent of his improper attitude of mind while dealing with the grievances of the petitioner. Attention of the Finance Department, should have been drawn to the two resolutions contained in Annexures-24 and 20. Annexure-24 is although referred to in the notings of the Finance Secretary but then it was misread. Attention of the Finance Department, should have been drawn to the two resolutions contained in Annexures-24 and 20. Annexure-24 is although referred to in the notings of the Finance Secretary but then it was misread. Aunexure-20 was completely left out of consideration which laid down in unequivocal terms that the first promotion, to those persons like the petitioner, would not stand as a bar for the second time bound promotion. In these circumstances, the petitioner who superannuated from the service, was dragged to litigation only because of the unfair attitude adopted by the respondent No 4. Pension and Gratuity are matters of right. Fulfilment and payment of it within time is not an obligation. In the facts of this case, undoubtedly, the right of the petitioner was adversely affected. How respondent No. 4 could have the authority was not explained before this Court. Therefore, before passing the order contained in Annexure-17, there was non-application of an independent mind and on a false pretext, shelter was taken behind the internal notings on the file of the Finance Department. 6 It has already been held by the Supreme Court that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to his employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable right and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay the penal interest on its dues at the current market rate commences on the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. 7. In this view, the order contained in Annexure-17, 23 and 23A are quashed. It is directed that the pension of the petitioner will be prepared on the basis of last ten months salary which the petitioner had drawn in accordance with the Annexures-21 and 21A. In the peculiar facts of this case it is further directed that the pension of the petitioner will be commuted without any further appearance of the petitioner before the Medical Board because the one year period has expired not on account of any fault of the petitioner. In the peculiar facts of this case it is further directed that the pension of the petitioner will be commuted without any further appearance of the petitioner before the Medical Board because the one year period has expired not on account of any fault of the petitioner. Keeping in view the harassment caused to the petitioner and, further, that the marriage of his daughter could not be fulfilled on account of non-payment of the amount of pension and gratuity, it is directed that the payment shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of this older. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum which will be paid to the petitioner by the State, which will commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. This application is accordingly allowed.