Judgment :- When C.M.P. No. 10918/91 came up for orders, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. lam disposing of the original petition. 2. Petitioner retired from service on 31-10-89. On account of the delay in disbursement of the retirement benefits, he approached this court by filing O.P. No. 78247 90. This court directed the first respondent to dispose of petitioner's representation and issue certificate of non-liability within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This court also directed the amounts to carry interest at 12% per annum, if the delay in the issue of non-liability certificate was found to be attributable to the actions of the first respondent. Purporting to be in compliance with the directions given by this court in Ext. P1 judgment, D.C.R.G. and pensionary benefits were paid to the petitioner on 5-12-90. Since he was not paid any interest on the said amount as ordered in Ext. P1, he filed a representation before Government claiming interest. That representation has been rejected by Ext. P3 order dated 29-8-91. That order is under challenge. 3. Detailed statement dated 13-2-92 has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, the Secretary to Government in the department of Finance. The contentions taken therein are to the following effect:--An amount of Rs. 1951- was fixed as the petitioner's liability for the period of his service in Government P.V. High School, Perumkulam and Government High School, West Kollam. The non-liability certificate in favour of the petitioner was forwarded to the Sub Treasury, Kollam on 5-12-90. Finalisation of the audit of the accounts of Government High School, West Kollam was delayed due to the fact that the Upper Primary School which was functioning separately under a separate Headmaster was amalgamated to the High School Section and the then Headmaster of the Upper Primary School did not handover the accounts and vouchers of the Upper Primary School to the petitioner. The delay was not attributable to the department and _ hence he is not entitled to interest at 12%. The finalisation of audit of accounts of High School, West Kollam was delayed due to tug of war between the petitioner and Sri. M. Joseph the then Upper Primary School Headmaster. Therefore the department is not duty bound to pay interest to the petitioner. The finalisation of audit of accounts of High School, West Kollam was delayed due to tug of war between the petitioner and Sri. M. Joseph the then Upper Primary School Headmaster. Therefore the department is not duty bound to pay interest to the petitioner. There is no culpable delay and the petitioner is not eligible for any interest. 4. For a proper understanding of the circumstances under which this court directed the Government to pay interest at 12% per annum, if the delay is attributable, I consider it necessary to read paragraph (1) of Ext. P1 judgment. "The grievance of the petitioner is that he retired as Headmaster on 1-11-1989 when functioning under the jurisdiction of the first respondent, but retirement benefits have not been given to him for want of non-liability certificate. It is stated that during Audit Inspection conducted by the first respondent liabilities of Rs. 42/- in one case and Rs. 750/- in another case in respect of Government P.V. High School and Government High School, West Kollam respectively were fixed against the petitioner. The petitioner paid the amount and also produced non-liability certificate from the said schools before the first respondent in February, 1990. But even thereafter non-liability certificate has not been issued by the first respondent so as to claim D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner. Therefore another representation was sent by the petitioner before the second respondent on 20-4-1990. The second respondent by letter dated 2-5-90 directed the first respondent viz. Deputy Director of Education, Kollam to issue non-liability certificate to the petitioner without any further delay. Thereafter on 17-5-1990 the petitioner sent another reminder to the second respondent and the second respondent by his letter dated 29-5-90 directed once again the first respondent, Deputy Director of Education, Kollam to expedite the issuance of non-liability certificate. Thereafter on 3-7-90 also the second respondent enquired of the present position regarding the issuance of non-liability certificate as the same has not been issued by the first respondent. Finally another letter dated 6-8-90 sent to the first respondent, viz. Deputy Director of Education, Kollam detailing all the facts and requesting to issue the non-liability certificate. When no reply was forthcoming the petitioner approached this Court". The details given in the above quoted passage shows that inspite of the specific instruction given by the second respondent, first respondent did not issue the non-liability certificate. Deputy Director of Education, Kollam detailing all the facts and requesting to issue the non-liability certificate. When no reply was forthcoming the petitioner approached this Court". The details given in the above quoted passage shows that inspite of the specific instruction given by the second respondent, first respondent did not issue the non-liability certificate. Had the non liability certificate been issued in proper time, petitioner could have drawn the entire amount due under D.C.R.G. without delay. Kit was found that the liability could not be finalised before the audit of the accounts of the High School is completed, the authority should have taken action as contemplated by the Rulings under Rule 116 of Part III K.S.R. The authority could have directed the petitioner to execute a bond undertaking to reimburse the liability. The authority could have released the D.C.R.G. provisionally, after with-holding 10% of it or Rs. 2000/-whichever is higher. Within one year from the date of the bond or the disbursement of the D.C.R.G. the bond was to be released or the amount retained disbursed. First respondent did not resort to any of these courses. He simply slept over the matter. 5. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1985 SC 356) Their Lordships observed: "The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement". This 'statement of law is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. So if the court finds that there was unreasonable delay in disbursing the retirement benefits of a Government servant, Government are to be compelled to pay penal interest at the current market rate on the amount due to retired Government servant. This liability of the State must commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. This liability of the Government is not on the basis of any Rule made by it. So the stand taken by the government in Ext. P3 that petitioner is not entitled to interest since his claim is not admissible under Rules is unsustainable. This contention is only to be stated to be rejected. 6. Petitioner retired from service on 31-10-89. This liability of the Government is not on the basis of any Rule made by it. So the stand taken by the government in Ext. P3 that petitioner is not entitled to interest since his claim is not admissible under Rules is unsustainable. This contention is only to be stated to be rejected. 6. Petitioner retired from service on 31-10-89. He was paid the retirement benefits on 5-12-90. No justifiable cause has been established for withholding the payment of D.C.R.G. till 5-12-90. So as per the decision referred to earlier, he is entitled to interest on amount of D.C.R.G. from 1-1-90 to 5-12-90. Even though he is entitled to penal interest on the current market rate, this court in Ext. P1 has fixed the rate at 12% . So I direct respondents to pay the petitioner interest on the amount of D.C.R.G. from 1-1-90 till 5-12-90. This amount by way of interest must be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If it is not so paid within that lime, that amount will carry further interest at the rate of 18% per annum. After paying the interest, third respondent should take effective steps to recover that amount from the officers who were responsible for causing the delay in disbursing the Death cum-Retirement gratuity. Original Petition is ordered in the above terms.