Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad. J. 1. The petitioner, who superannuated from the post of Head Mistress Adarsh Balika Middles School, Ranchi, Dencai on 31-3-1992 has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction id the nature ot mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of post retirement benefits, such as full pension including dearnass reliefs payable on pension Group Insurance amount/g P. F. amount and other entitlement payable to the petitioner with interest from the date af bar retirement. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as an assistant Teacher on 1-3-1955 and after service in different scales she superannuated from the post of Head Mistress on 31-3-1992. The petitioner claims that during bar aforesaid long service she worked to the utmost satisfaction of higher officers and there is no proceeding pending against her! it is stated that the petitioner submitted her pension papers along with the required documents and also application for payment of aforementioned. retirement benefits including unutilised leave salary before the superintendent of Education, Rancbi on 14-5-92. Acceding to the petitioner as per various orders of the Government of Bibar she was entitled to get pension of her post retiral benefits on 1st day of the mouth following the month in which she superannuated without any delay and harassment It is also stated that the government of Bihar in its circular, contained in memo No.3155 dated 7-11-81 aso provided for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits at the prescribed rate for the period beyond three moths after the date of retirement till the end of the month preceding the month in which the payment of final pension/gratuity etc are actually made. The petitioner has stated that after a lapse of about more than a year she has been paid only the amount of unutilised leave salary and provisional gratuity and pension without the amount of dearness relief payable on pension from the date of retirement till October, 1993 But even the payment of provisional pension has been stopped with effect from November, 1993 without assigning any reason and also without affording an opportunity to be heard by the District Superintendent of Education (respondent No.2, It is, alleged that despite several requests, the respondents, specially respondent No.2 is not paying any deed and intentionally delaying the payment of her retiral benefits. She is in dire deed of money for her subsistence in life as there is no other means after her retirement, which has forced her to approach this Court for appropriate direction for payment of her legal dues. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the District superintendent of Education, District Provident Fund Officer and the accountant General (respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 respectively ). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No 3 it is stated that the office of respondent No 3 started functioning from 1-4-86 and there is nothing in the said office of the period prior to1-4-86. According to the said respondent all accounts of service papers viz G P F etc. of the petitioner were maintained by the District Superintendent of Education, Rancbi (respondent No.2 ). Respondent No.3 neither received any petition for final withdrawal of the g P. F. amount, nor any balauce sheet on the basis of which Authority Slip could be issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that respondent No.3 requested the Superintendent of Education to send the petition for final withdrawal of the G. P. F. and the balance sheet vide memo No.1799 dated 16-1-94 and as soon as the same is received, the Authority Slip would be issued to the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Accountant General (respondent No.4) it is stated that the pension papers along with service book has been received in his office on 22-2-94 and the same was returned to the Dett in original vide his office memo No pen-14-G-106 107 dated 11-4-94 for compliance of some of the formalities ie, (a) pay fixation on 1-4-81 (b)certificate regarding passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, pointed out by this office Subsequently, a reminder was also sent to the department vide memo No 14-G-118-l9 dated 17-8-94, but the same has not been sent by the department (Dist. Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) after complying with the said formalities. Heace, according to respondent No.4, the claim regarding pension is pending with the department and the same hall be finalised on receipt of papers from the department. Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) after complying with the said formalities. Heace, according to respondent No.4, the claim regarding pension is pending with the department and the same hall be finalised on receipt of papers from the department. It is also stated that second reminder in respect of the above, was also sent on 16-9-94, vide office letter No.14-G-152-54 in regard to G P. F. it is stated that the A. Gs office does not maintain the G P F account of a nationalised school and the same will be paid by the department In so far as the amount of General insurance and leave salary payable to her, it is stated that they are also to be paid by the department concerned. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 the facts stated in the writ application are mere or less submitted. It is stated that the petitioner has received Rs.36,500 being the amount against the payment of gratuity. In paragraph 6 it is however, stated that the petitioner has not submitted her application in the prescribed proforma for withdrawal of her provident Fund amount in spite of several requests made to her, for union a letters was also sent to the head mistress of the school in question and as soon as the application in the prescribed proforma is received it will be sent to the sanctioning authority for calculation of the amount and issuing Authority slip. As such, it is alleged that the petitioner is herself responsible for the delay in this regard. 6. As regards the provisional pension from January, 84 to July, 84 it is stated that the same has been prepared and sent to the Treasury. So far as the amount of Group Insurance, the same has been sanctioned vide memo no.975 dated 3-3-94, but the bill in that regard could not be prepared, as the concerned Assistant died unfortunately. However, it is stated that the bill in this regard has been prepared and has been sent to the treasury for its passing. 7. So far as the amount of Group Insurance, the same has been sanctioned vide memo no.975 dated 3-3-94, but the bill in that regard could not be prepared, as the concerned Assistant died unfortunately. However, it is stated that the bill in this regard has been prepared and has been sent to the treasury for its passing. 7. In respect of payment of final pension and gratuity it is stated that in view of the objection raised by the A G. that the petitioner being head of the institution and drawing and disbursing officer was required pass the Hindi noting and Drafting Examination, but as one had not passed,the said examination and has drawn her increment illegally the same is liable to be realised from her. Respondent No.2 has also mentioned about the objection regarding the fixation of pay of the petitioner as it was not signed by the district Accounts officer about which it is stated that the head mistress of the school concerned was informed by the respondent No.2 vide memo No.42571 dated 16-6-1994 It, is alleged that for both the objections raised by the A. G. the petitioner is responsible as the draw increment illegally and that even though she was duty bound to obtain the signature of the District Accounts officer on pay fixation short, but she did not do so. Another plea that has been taken by the respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit is that the application for payment of pension and other dues was not submitted by the petitioner within the specified time. i. e. six months before her superannuation. 8. A reply on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed, in which: it is re-iterated that the pension papers and application for other post retiral benefits were submitted in the prescribed proforma before respondent No.2 and that the statements in the counter affidavit and reply contrary to above are absolutely false, baseless and concocted. The petitioner has stated that she never received any letter, which is claimed to have been issued by the respondent No.2. In , paragraph 11 of the re-joinder it is contented that the provisional pension in question was withheld by respondent No 2 with effect from January, 1994 without any fault of the petitioner and for which no cogent reason has been assigned in the counteraffidavit. In , paragraph 11 of the re-joinder it is contented that the provisional pension in question was withheld by respondent No 2 with effect from January, 1994 without any fault of the petitioner and for which no cogent reason has been assigned in the counteraffidavit. So far as the explanation in the counter affidavit for non payment of amount of Group Insurance due to death of the concerned assistant is concerned, it is stated that the application for payment of the amount was also submitted on 14-5-1992 by the petitioner before respondent no.2 about more that 10 months prior to the death of the concerned assistant, who died on 4-3-94. Thus, it is contented that respondent No.2 was intentionally silting over the matter since May, 1992 only to person and victimise the petitioner in her old age and due to such delaying attitude of the respondent No.2, the petitioner has been unnecessarily put to untold hardships distress mental agony and irreparable loss. In reply to the statement made in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 regarding tbe objection raised by the Accountant General ,it is stated that the same has already been complied with and the objection has been dured by obtaining the signature of the District Accounts Officer en the pay fixation chart and returned to respondent No.2 on 1-8-1994 vide letter No.9 dated 30-7-94 of the Headmistress of the school in question for final sanction of petitioners pension, but the respondent No.2 is sitting tight over the matter and has made false statement in the counter affidavit. 9. In regard to non-passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination, it is contended that under the Government instructions contained in mamo No.1834 dated 13 11-1987, which has been annexed as annexure b the passing of the said examination is only essential for promotion on the post of incharge headmaster or headmaster if they are required to writs noting, drafting or to submit statement. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted as headmistress in a middle school, at the age of 56 years and there was no necessity to write noting and drafting. Thus, according to bar, she was not required to, pass the said examination and the allegations made by respondent No.2 regarding the withdrawal of increment illegally and fixation of her pay contrary to law are absolutely incorrect. Thus, according to bar, she was not required to, pass the said examination and the allegations made by respondent No.2 regarding the withdrawal of increment illegally and fixation of her pay contrary to law are absolutely incorrect. It is stated that the same was withdrawn after proper verification and fixation of her pay by respondent No.2. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the pleadings of the parties it would appear that the action of respondent No.2 has not been fair and has deliberately delayed in clearing all the dues of the petitioner towards the post retiral benefits, somuch so that even the provisional pension of the petitioner was kept withheld by him without any cogent reason. Accordingly it was submitted that the action of respondent No.2 is mala fide and motivated, just to harass the petitioner for the reasons best know the respondents. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in fact, respondent No 2 took all steps without any laches on his part and with all promptness and the petitioner hereself is responsible for the delay in payment of the retiral benefits. 12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having considered the entired facts and circumstances, stated above, I find that the action of the respondent No.2 in not clearing the lawful dues toward) the post retiral benefits of the petitioner has not been just and fair. It is true that the petitioner submitted the pension papers after her superannuation, but that by itself cannot be a ground for unnecessarily withholding the payments of the petitioner towards the post retiral benefits. If there was any shortcoming in complying with the necessary formalities for clearing the dues towards the post retiral benefits of the petitioner, then the respondent No.2 should have pointed out the same at the earliest and communicated about the same to the petitioner directly for compliance of the required formalities. If there was any shortcoming in complying with the necessary formalities for clearing the dues towards the post retiral benefits of the petitioner, then the respondent No.2 should have pointed out the same at the earliest and communicated about the same to the petitioner directly for compliance of the required formalities. But instead of that, it appears that the respondent No.2 after lapse of long time claims to have sent some latter to the Headmistress of the school in question Admittedly, the pension papers were submitted by the petitioner on 14-5-92 before the Superintendent of Education (respoadent No.2)but the same was forwarded to the A. C. Bihar, Patna for final decision only after lapse of about one and half years, vide memo No.327 dated 28-1-94 as has been admitted by him in paragraphs of the counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 has not given any explanation for the said delay in forwarding the pension papers to A. G. The delay in the release of provisional pension for the period January, 94 to July, 94, particularly when prior to that the provisional pension of the petitioner was released up to december, 93. Respondent No 2 has not given any justification. The delay of about two years in sanctioning the amount of Group Insur not for which the only plea taken in the counter affidavit is the death of the Assistant which occurred after lapse of about two years of the submission of the application can not also be accepted to be justified. 13. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner has been kept denied of the payment of the lawful dues only on account of laches, on the part of respondent No.2 and thus, she it entitled for the reliefs prayed for with interest over and the above due amount besides cost of litigation in this Court. 14. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to forward the papers relating to G P F. dues of the petitioner to the District Provident Fund officer (respondent No 3) after getting Unnecessary formalities completed within a weak from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and respondent No 3 shall issue the necessary authority slip for payment of the due amount of G. P. F. along with the statutory interest within one week thereafter. In so far as the pension, eratuity and other dues, which are lying pending with the accountant General Office, respondent No 4 is directed to complete the necessary formalities within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and issue necessary authority slip for the same along with interest at the rate of 12% over and above the amount found to be lawfully payable to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the amount of interest shall be realised from the pocket of the concerned District Superintendents of Education, who were posted from 1992 till date, after giving them a show cause notice. 15. In the result, the writ application is all owed with the cost pf litigation, which is assessed to be Rs.2000/- (rupees two thousand) payable to the petitioner by respondent. No.2 from his own pocket within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which this Court may consider to initiate a contempt proceeding against him. Petition allowed.