JUDGMENT B.N. Agrawal. J The sole appellant in this letters patent appeal has challenged the judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby writ application filed by the appellant before this Court has been allowed in part only and in this letters patent appeal; only that portion of the judgment has been challenged by which the reliefs claimed on behalf of this appellant in the writ application have been refused. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant after passing intermediate examination had secured Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as a regular student of P.M.V. Technical Institute at Mathura in 1947. He also passed the Mechanical Engineers Estimates and Specifications examination and Boiler House Practice examination. He served in Uttar Pradesh Government workshop at Roorkee, L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, and Government Polytechnic, Lucknow. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Foreman by the Government of Bihar and he joined the said post on 7.1.59. In the year 1962, he was appointed an Superintendent of Junior Technical School at Kodarma on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission and in October, 1965 he was transferred to Junior Technical School, Patna. There were three Junior Technical Schools in Bihar including a Junior Technical School at Patna, and some time later, all the three Junior Technical Schools of Bihar were closed by the State Government. After their closure, the staff of these three schools were absorbed in identical pay scale, but the appellant was arbitrarily reverted to the post of Foreman, although several posts of Workshop Superintendents were lying vacant during that period and the appellant was selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission for the post of Workshop Superintendent Challenging his reversion, the appellant moved this Court giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 1704 of 1969 but the case was withdrawn on 23.12.70 on the assurance given by the State Government to post him as Workshop Superintendent and pursuant to that assurance the appellant was posted as Workshop Superintendent in the Government Polytechnic at Dumka on 15.3.1971. 3. 3. Further case of the appellant is that the Second Pay Revision Committee in its report recommended that 20 per cent of the posts of Superintendents of Junior Technical Schools and Industrial Training Schools, which were under the administrative control of the Department of Industries and Technical Education should be converted into selection grade posts with effect from 1.4.1964 which recommendation was accepted by the State Government Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the State Government accepting the said recommendation, the Government implemented its decision for conversion of the posts of Superintendents of Industrial Training Institutes into Selection Grade posts with effect from 1.4.1964 on 12.12.1967, but the decision of the Government to convert 20 percent of the posts of Superintendents of Junior Technical Schools into Selection Grade posts was not implemented though out of three posts of Superintendent of Junior Technical Schools, 20 per cent of the posts, meaning thereby one post, should have been converted into Selection Grade posts. Since the appellant was senior-most amongst Superintendents of Junior Technical Schools, he was entitled to be given the pay scale of Selection Grade post with effect from 1.4.1964 after its conversion. But the State Government did not convert 20 percent of the posts of Superintendents of Junior Technical Schools into Selection Grade post and, consequently, the appellant was deprived of the benefits of Selection Grade post. 4. According to the appellant, he was wrongly disallowed to cross efficiency bar at two levels on the ground that there was adverse entry in his character roll and no post of Workshop Superintendent was created. It is said that because of the adverse entry, the appellant was compulsorily retired, but ultimately he was reinstated upon receipt of Sinha Enquiry Commission's report, but inspite of that he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar. Though the appellant had worked on a teaching post, he has not been granted University Grants Commission's (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.G.C.’) pay scale which has been granted to similarly situated incumbents of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna and other Government Engineering institution, situated at Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur and Sindri. The appellant retired on 1.12.82, but payment of Gratuity. Though the appellant had worked on a teaching post, he has not been granted University Grants Commission's (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.G.C.’) pay scale which has been granted to similarly situated incumbents of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna and other Government Engineering institution, situated at Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur and Sindri. The appellant retired on 1.12.82, but payment of Gratuity. Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P.F ') amount to him was withheld on account of pendency of a money suit filed by the State against the appellant which was ultimately dismissed and thereafter on 18.5.1985 payment was made to him, as such, he was entitled to claim interest on G.P.F. amount. 5. Besides the aforesaid claims, there were several other claims of the appellant. The learned single Judge has disallowed the claim of the appellant regarding interest, benefit s of selection grade post, crossing of efficiency bar benefits of University Grants Commission's scale of pay and certain other matters and allowed some of the claims of the appellant. Hence this appeal. 6. Although several points have been taken in the memo of appeal, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant during the course of argument has assailed the impugned judgment on four counts only and did not press the other points. Firstly, he contended that the learned single Judge was satisfied on merit that the appellant was entitled to claim interest for belated payment of G.P.F. amount, but the claim was rejected solely on the ground that the Accountant-General was not made a party to the writ application. It is submitted that the appellant's employer is the State of Bihar, which was made a party respondent in the writ application and the Accountant General was not a necessary party and the relief for interest could have been granted in favour of the appellant without impleading the Accountant-General as a party. Since the appellant's employer was the State of Bihar, which was impleaded as respondent no. 1 in the writ application, this claim could not have been rejected on the ground that the Accountant-General, Bihar, was not made a party which was not at all a necessary party. Since the appellant's employer was the State of Bihar, which was impleaded as respondent no. 1 in the writ application, this claim could not have been rejected on the ground that the Accountant-General, Bihar, was not made a party which was not at all a necessary party. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent had no option but to concede that the learned single Judge was not justified in rejecting this claim of the appellant on the ground that the Accountant General was not made party to the writ application. A question now arises as to at what rate interest should be allowed and from which date. In this connection, I may usefully refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Ors v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court, 356) in which for belated payment of G.P.F. amount to a Government servant, interest was claimed and the apex Court was of the view that interest in such cases should be allowed at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that under the relevant rules, a Government servant is required to apply within a period of six months from the date of retirement for payment of G.P.F. amount and no direction can be given by this Court for payment of penal interest till the date a Government servant applies for payment of G.P.F. amount. In my view, the stand of the State is quite reasonable and the appellant is entitled to interest, on the G.P.F. amount due on the date of filing of application for payment of Cr. P. F. amount or date of retirement whichever expires later, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the next day of filing of the application for payment of G.P.F. amount or retirement whichever expires later. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant next contended that the appellant was due to cross efficiency bar on two occasions, firstly, on 4.7.1964 and, secondly, in the revised pay scale on 4.7.1973. It has been submitted that the appellant was not allowed to cross efficiency bar on both the occasions because there was adverse entry in his character roll and, ultimately, he was compulsorily retired. It has been submitted that the appellant was not allowed to cross efficiency bar on both the occasions because there was adverse entry in his character roll and, ultimately, he was compulsorily retired. It is said that a Commission of Enquiry was constituted for considering the cases of the compulsorily retired Government servants which recommended that the State Government was not justified in compulsorily retiring the appellant and on receipt of the report of the Commission, the appellant was reinstated. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my view, the State Government was not justified in not allowing the appellant to cross efficiency bar on the aforesaid dates and, as such, the appellant is entitled to the benefits of crossing efficiency bar in the revised pay scale on 4.7.1964 and 4.7.1973. 8. Learned counsel next contended that the appellant worked on a teaching post, but he has not been granted U.G.C. pay scale which was granted to similarly situated incumbents of Bihar College of Engineering and other such institutions. According to learned counsel, the appellant was entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1200 1900/- in U.G.C. pay scale from 1.4.1973 when the State Government decided to implement U.G.C. pay scale to the teaching employees of Polytechnics. In this connection, my attention has been drawn to the two unreported decisions of this Court in the cases of Sundeshwari Prasad Singh and Ors v The State of Bihar and another (C.W.J.C. No 572/79 disposed of on 2.7.1980) and Prem Kant Mishra and Ors v The State of Bihar and another (C.W.J.C. No 2721/81 disposed of on 27.11.1984). In the former case, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the case of Demonstrators in the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Bhagalpur College of Engineering and Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri. It was laid down in that case that those persons were entitled to U.G.C. pay scale prescribed for Demonstrators with effect from 1.4.1973. Likewise in the case of Prem Kant Mishra (supra) another Division Bench of this Court has granted similar relief to similarly situated persons. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that University Grants Commission did not revise the pay scale of Workshop Superintendents of Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. In my view, the grievance of the appellant is not regarding revision of pay scale, but the grievance is for grant of U.G.C. pay scale to the appellant. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that University Grants Commission did not revise the pay scale of Workshop Superintendents of Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. In my view, the grievance of the appellant is not regarding revision of pay scale, but the grievance is for grant of U.G.C. pay scale to the appellant. The appellant is admittedly a teaching employee of Junior Technical School and the State Government had decided to implement U.G.C. pay scale to the teaching employees of Polytechnics and Engineering Colleges and, as such, the appellant's case is at par with them. In my view, the appellants' case on this count is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court. I, accordingly, hold that the appellant is entitled to U.G.C. pay scale, that is Rs. 1200-1900 with effect from 1.4.1973. 9. Learned counsel appealing on behalf of the appellant lastly contended that according to the recommendation of the Second Pay Revision Committee, which was accepted by the Government, 20 per cent of the posts of Superintendents of three Junior Technical Schools were required to be converted into Selection Glade post with effect from 1.4.1964 and, after conversion, the appellant being the senior-most was entitled to be given the Selection Grade post, but neither the post has been converted into Selection Grade nor the appellant has been given the Selection Grade post. Learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant on two grounds, firstly, on account of delay as in the opinion of the learned single Judge, this claim of the appellant was rejected in the year 1976 and thereafter he kept mum till before the filing of the writ application before this Court in the year 1984. The second ground for rejecting this claim of the appellant by learned single Judge was that there were only three posts of Superintendents in the Junior Technical Schools and only 20 per cent thereof could have been converted into Selection Grade post and since 20 per cent was less than one, therefore, it was not possible to convert these three posts into one post of Selection Grade. 10. 10. So far as the first ground for rejecting this claim of the appellant, which had weighed with the learned single Judge, is concerned, I may state that by communication dated 5.5.1976 issued by the Director of Labour and Employment to Deputy Director of Science and Technology, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, the claim for converting three posts of Workshop Superintendents of Junior Technical Schools into Selection Grade post was rejected. From Annexure 3 it is not clear that a copy of this communication was sent to the appellant. It has not been stated even in the counter affidavit that a copy of this communication was forwarded to the appellant. No sooner the appellant learnt about this communication, he made a representation before the respondent State which has been rejected by the State Government under its communication dated 27th June, 1983 contained in Annexure 4 of the writ application and only a few months thereafter in the year 1984, the writ application was filed by the appellant before this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am clearly of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in rejecting this claim of the appellant on the ground of delay as, in my view, no delay was caused by the appellant in moving this Court in relation to his this claim. 11. So far as the second ground for rejecting this claim of the appellant is concerned in my view, there also the learned single Judge was not justified. In this connection, I may refer to a Government circular bearing memo no. 3/P. R. C.-02/72-166B dated 13.1.1973 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Department of Finance addressed to all departmental heads and all Divisional Commissioners. In that circular, it has been mentioned as to how percentage will be calculated in regard to posts for converting the same into Selection Grade. It has been mentioned therein by way of illustration that if there are two posts and conversion has to be made in the ratio of 20 per cent thereof in that event no post will be converted into Selection Grade. It has been further mentioned that where the number of posh to be converted is between 3 to 7; in that event, the same will be converted into one post keeping in mind the ratio of 20 per cent. It has been further mentioned that where the number of posh to be converted is between 3 to 7; in that event, the same will be converted into one post keeping in mind the ratio of 20 per cent. The said circular may be found in the book 'Compilation of Government Orders relating to Service Rules and Conditions (Government Publication Second Edition, printed in 1976 Vol 2 at page 501). From a bare perusal of the aforesaid circular, it would be plain that if 20 per cont of three posts is required to be converted, the same will be converted into one post. In the case in band admittedly there were three sanctioned posts of Superintendents in three Junior Technical Schools, as such, the same were required to be converted into one post of Selection Grade, but the State Government for the reasons best known to it, has failed to convert the said posts. As such, I hereby direct the State Government to convert three posts of Workshop Superintendents in three Junior Technical Schools into one post of Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1964. Since the appellant was admittedly the senior-most amongst three Workshop Superintendents in three Junior Technical School, his case is required to be considered first by the State Government after conversion of the post into Selection Grade and the appellant is entitled to be given benefits of Selection Grad post with effect from 1.4.1964. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and judgment of the learned single Judge is modified, as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the State Government to make payment of interest to the appellant, as indicated above, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before concerned authority by the petitioner of a copy thereof from this Court by the concerned authority. All other directions relating to the appellant as given in this judgment must be carried out by the respondent-State and all payments relating thereto must be made to him within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment from this Court or production of a certified copy thereof by the appellant before the authority concerned. All other directions relating to the appellant as given in this judgment must be carried out by the respondent-State and all payments relating thereto must be made to him within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment from this Court or production of a certified copy thereof by the appellant before the authority concerned. G.G. Sohani, C.J. - I agree. ORDER 1.3.1991 13. Heard Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Y.V. Giri, 'Senior S.C.C.G. for respondent no. 3. None has appeared for the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in the judgment delivered on 19.1.1990 two typographical errors have crept in. It is stated that in paragraph no. 11 at Page 9 of the judgment 'Superintendent' has been designated as Workshop Superintendent' at two places, but, in point of fact there is no post of Workshop Superintendent in the Junior Technical Schools and the post is designated only as 'Superintendent'. The prayer is allowed. Let the word 'Workshop' before the word 'Superintendent', as mentioned at two places in paragraph 11 at Page 9 of the judgment, be deleted. This order shall form part of the judgment delivered on 19.1.1990.