Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This is yet another case of a Government servant, who retired as early as on 31st January, 1991, running from pillar to post for payment of his provident fund dues as also certain monetary benefits to which he became entitled by reason of grant of 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 30th May, 1984. The grand of, time bound promotion affects the pensionary due to which the petitioner becomes entitled on the basis of salary last drawn by him, and obviously, the petitioner has been kept deprive of the same for so many years. The usual excuse given by the State is that its various officers do not know that is he penning in the other office. The only suffers are the government employees who are made to run from pillar to post and ultimately to approach this Court for grant of relief. It is not disputed that an order was passed in the year 1991 granting 2nd time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 30th May, 1984. The petitioner claims that he should be given the monetary benefit of that promotion except for the period from 1.1.86 to 29th February, 1989 which is the period for which in view of some government circular, he is not entitled to the payment. 3. Counsel for the State now submits that the petitioner could not have been granted 2nd time bound promotion because he was granted 1st time bound promotion in the year 1981 and no person can be granted 2nd time bound promotion within five years of the grant of Ist time bound promotion. There is no warrant for such a broad proposition because a person becomes entitled to the 1st time bound promotion on completing 15 years service and the 2nd time bound promotion in completing 25 years service. It is a common experience that time bound promotion is not granted promptly, and the order granting such promotion is passed much later with retrospective effect. The same was done in the instant case as well when the petitioner was granted 2nd time bound promotion in the year 1991 with effect from 30th May, 1988. It is, therefore, not possible to contend as a matter of rule that two orders granting time bound promotions cannot be passed within a span of five years. The same was done in the instant case as well when the petitioner was granted 2nd time bound promotion in the year 1991 with effect from 30th May, 1988. It is, therefore, not possible to contend as a matter of rule that two orders granting time bound promotions cannot be passed within a span of five years. It all depends upon the facts of the case, as to when a particular employee became entitled to time bound promotion and when the actual order granting such promotion was passed. The petitioner is, therefore, clearly entitled to the benefit of time bound promotion except for the period above mentioned. If he was under suspension for a certain period [his subsistence allowance has to be suitably refixed having regard to his enhanced pay scale]. He is also entitled to difference thereof. 4. [What however is most astounding in the fact that the petitioner has yet to be paid his provident fund dues. The petitioner retired with effect from 31st January, 1991.] The State pleads that till the year 1981, the fund account was being maintained by the Accountant General of Bihar, and only thereafter it is being maintained by the State Government through the District Provident Fund Officers. In large number of cases, it has been brought to our notice that the office of the Accountant General has transferred the accounts to the offices of the respective District Provident fund officers. Be that as it may, it is for the State to take all necessary steps in advance to see to it that provident fund dues are paid to its retiring employees on the date of retirement, or at least within a reasonable time thereof. On the contrary, the retired government employees are made do wait for years together to receive their provident fund dues and in many cases such dues are received by the legal representatives of the deceased employee. Despite hersh orders passed in such matters, things have not in improvement and the sad tale of retired government servants seems to have no end. Obviously, the action taken, so far, by the Court has not been effective enough. We are at our wits and as to how to prevent large number of writ petitioner being filed claiming retirement benefits unjustly withheld. 5. Obviously, the action taken, so far, by the Court has not been effective enough. We are at our wits and as to how to prevent large number of writ petitioner being filed claiming retirement benefits unjustly withheld. 5. While on provident fund dues, statutory interest is paid according to rules and in the matter of payment of other dues, the Courts usually pass an order for payment of interest, there is no reason why the State must be burdened with such liability for the negligence of its officers. If the State is compelled to pay costs or interest in such cases, that must be recovered from the officers for whose negligence such cost or interest is awarded. The instant case is one such case, and I have no doubt that concerned officer who are found guilty or negligence and laches must be firmly dealt with. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his entire provident fund dues with statutory interest within a period of four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the District Provident Fund Officer, Gumla. It is for the District Provident Fund Officer, Gumla to complete the accounts and make the payment after securing the documents of the accounts wherever they may be. The State of Bihar is directed to pay to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of a copy of this order before respondent No. 2. The other amounts to which the petitioner is entitled on account of the 2nd time bound promotion granted to him, which includes arrears of salary for the period payable and the difference of the subsistence allowance. The petitioners pensions shall be refixed and he shall also be paid his pensionary dues including arrears, after recalculating the same on the basis of pay enhancement on account of 2nd time bound promotion. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the Accountant General of Bihar, respondent No. 5. 7. The State of Bihar shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of cost within a month. 8. The Chief Secretary, Govt. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the Accountant General of Bihar, respondent No. 5. 7. The State of Bihar shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of cost within a month. 8. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar is hereby directed to make an inquiry himself, or authorise another officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, to fix the responsibility on the persons concerned for whose negligence or laches, the provident fund dues have not been paid to the petitioner. He shall also fix responsibility on the concerned officer for whoso negligence or laches, the other monetary benefits have not been paid to the petitioner. The State Government shall thereafter, initiate a departmental proceeding against these officers found guilty and place them under suspension. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding the cost paid by the State shall be realised from such officers. 9. The Chief Secretary is directed to submit his report as to the action taken by him pursuant to this order within a period of five weeks from today. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, for immediate action.