H. K. Sema, J.- This writ petition has been filed by a public spirited person in the form of Public Interest Litigation praying inter alia for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the salaries of the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench for the month of October, 1995 with , interest at the rate of 18%. This petition has been filed on 22.11.95. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the present petition may be briefly recited. Salaries for the employees of Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench for the month of October, 1995 was cleared by the Treasury on 2.11.95, and thereafter, the State Bank of India, Lerie Branch issued a deposit at call (not transferable) bearing No.DL 828703 dated 2.11.95 for a sum of Rs.1,97,043/- (Rupees one lakh ninty seven thousand forty three). Despite of the issuance of deposit at call on 2.11.95, the salary was refused to the employees by the Branch Manager, SBI, Lerie Branch on one pretext or the other till this petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus as stated above. It is also stated that the staff of Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court made endeavour to meet the Branch Manager, Lerie Branch on several occasions, but they could not contact him on the pretext that the Manager is not available in his office, although it was certain mat the 3rd respondent was in the office but refused to meet the employees of the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court feigning absence in the office. It is stated at the Bar that ultimately the salary for the month of October 1995 has been released on 27.11.95. 3. On 22.11.95 while issuing a Rule, returnable within a month, this Court also directed the 3rd respondent, the Branch Manager, SBI, Lerie Branch to appear before this Court at 10.30 AM on 23.11.95 and explain why salary and allowances of the employees of this Court have not been released. Pursuant to the direction, 3rd respondent appeared before this Court on 23.11.95 and explained that the only ground for non-payment of salaries is for lack of remittance from the Reserve Bank of India, Guwahati Branch. It is on the basis of this statement, the Currency Officer, RBI has been ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No.5. 4. We have heard Mr. LS Jamir, learned counsel for the petitmrveY^TSir. It is on the basis of this statement, the Currency Officer, RBI has been ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No.5. 4. We have heard Mr. LS Jamir, learned counsel for the petitmrveY^TSir. EY Renthungo, learned Junior Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. K. Meruno, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, and N,... tfhuyan, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 5. Counter on behalf of the 3rd respondent has been filed. In para 6 of the counter, 3rd respondent admitted that salary of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench staff for the month of October, 1995 was paid by way of DAC on 2.11.95. However, the same could not be paid in cash as there was insufficient cash reserved for the month of October, 1995. It was further stated that the cash reserved in the State Bank of India, Lerie Branch from 31.10.95 to 23.11.95 was only 28.09 lacs. This amount according to the 3rd respondent is really insufficient. We may at this stage dispose of this contention of the 3rd respondent. As already said, the salary of the staff for the month of October stood at Rs. 1,97,0437- only. The 3rd respondent admitted in para 6 of its counter that the cash reserved was only 28.09 lacs in between 31.10.95 to 23.11.95. In our opinion there was no difficulties in making payment of the salary of the staff for the month of October. We therefore, hold that the 3rd respondent failed to pay the salary of the staff when it is due without any reasons. 6. Counter on behalf of the 5th respondent has also been filed. It is stated in the counter that, there was no negligence and laches on the part of the 5th respondent, Currency Officer, RBI. It is stated in para 5(d) of the counter as under: "(d) As regards the remittance to the chests maintained at State Bank of India, Lerie, the Reserve Bank of India had received the following telegram from the said branch and immediate action was taken by issue of Diversion Order from SBI, Kohima to SBI, Lerie. Date of telegram Date of Diversion Amount Telex received Order 29.8.95 1.9.95 Rs.5.00 crores 10.10.95 10.10.95 .. Rs.3.00 crores 23.11.95 23.11.95 Rs.3.00 crores" 7. Date of telegram Date of Diversion Amount Telex received Order 29.8.95 1.9.95 Rs.5.00 crores 10.10.95 10.10.95 .. Rs.3.00 crores 23.11.95 23.11.95 Rs.3.00 crores" 7. From the averments in para 5(d) of the counter of the 5th respondent, it clearly appears that the 3rd respondent took steps only on 23.11.95 when he was ordered to appear before this Court. The 3rd respondent did not take any steps for asking remittance from Reserve Bank of India from 2.11.95 (to date on which payment is refused) on 22.11.95 (the date on which this writ petition has been filed). If it was the case of the 3rd respondent that payment could not be made for shortage of currency in the bank, he could have been taken immediate steps, say on 2.11.95 itself or even on 3.11.95 asking remittance from the RBI. It appears to us he has long overslept and suddenly awoke from slumber when he received notice from this Court to appear before this Court on 23.11.95. It appears this is the modus operandi of the 3rd respondent, and in our view for extraneous consideration. Why we say this, we shall give our reasons when we consider counter of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed in this case. Also from the statement made in para 5 (d) of the 5th respondent, it clearly appears that the 5th respondent took immediate action on receipt of the telegram dated 23.11.95. We are, therefore, fully satisfied that there was no laches and negligence on the part of the 5th respondent. 8. Counter on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 has been filed. It is averred in para 3 of the counter that in normal Government functioning, pay bills are to be presented to the Treasury in prescribed form and the concerned Treasuries always passed for payment of salary within the schedule of time, and therefore,no negligence nor laches can be imputed on the respondent Government so far with regard to the payment of salaries of the Government staff is concerned. It is also averred in para 5 of the counter that in order to facilitate the payment of salaries in time, Government of Nagaland have taken various actions : " The Branch Manager, SBI, Lerie Branch has been asked to clarify as to why payment of salaries to the Government servant is delayed every month vide letter No.FIN/TA/6-6/94 dated 21.11.95." 9. In our considered opinion, the letter dated 21.11.95 referred to in Annexure IV of the counter of respondents 1 and 2 has relevancy for the purpose of disposal of this case, and the same is extracted : "Government of Nagaland Finance Department Treasuries and Accounts Branch No.FIN/TA/6-6/94 Dated Kohima, the 21 st Nov., 1995 To, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lerie Branch, Kohima. Sub: Delay in Releasing of Monthly Salary Sir, I am directed to refer to the above subject and to state that instances and reports made by the members of CANSSEA, have come to the notice of the Finance Department that there is a repeated delay in disbursing salaries to the Government employees, (emphasis supplied) You are, therefore, requested to state as to why salary of the Government employees could not be disbursed in time every month causing undue hardship to the Government employees at the earliest. Yours faithfully, Sd/- GC Dutta Under Secretary to the Govt. Nagaland." 10. We are curious to note such a serious allegations contained in letter dated 21.11.95 has not been answered by the 3rd respondent. It appears the 3rd respondent has no answer for it. This is the complete answer to our observation made above. We therefore, clearly of the view that late payment of salary of the staff of Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench is due to the utter negligence and dereliction of duties of the 3rd respondent, which calls for detail enquiry by the competent authority. 11. We, unequivocally observed that the salary of the Government servants is hard earned cash of the employee. It is not a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees but it becomes of valuable right in the hands of the employee after it is due. Delay of making payment of salaries to the Government servants has chain reactions. Many of the employees may be getting essential commodities and other food stuffs on credit from the shop owner and if they are not repaid within the due time the debt will be accumulated and the shop keepers and the traders may be charging interest from the accumulated debt, the employees have to pay their children monthly tuition fees and if they are not paid in time the children may be debarred from appearing examination, withhold of result and in some extreme cases even expulsion from the school are not uncommon. Therefore, if there is culpable delay in making payment in normal circumstances it must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate, and in such situation, the liability to pay shall fall upon the person through the negligence and laches of whom causes delay in making payment. However, in the instant case, since we have already observed that the detail enquiry is called for by a competent authority. We are not inclined to award interest. 12. Mr. LS Jamir strenuously urged that under the provision of section 117 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. Perusal of the provision of section 117, the provision is applicable only in case of dishonour of a promissory note or cheque. In the instant case, although the payment was delayed it was paid ultimately on 27.11.95. Therefore, this provision in our opinion is not applicable in the facts of the case at hand. 13. For the reasons aforestated, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent No.6, Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, Dimapur, and respondent No.7, Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Post Box No. 12, Bombay - 400021 to initiate a detail disciplinary enquiry and may pass any order as deemed fit and proper. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). The costs shall be paid by respondent No.3 within a week from today.