Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. As in all these writ applications the points involved are common, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present writ applications, the grievance of the peititoners, who superannuated as employees of the bihar State Road Transport Corporation (in short the Corporation) is that though they superannuated in between the years 1986 and 1994, yet they have not been paid their dues of retirement benefits and other dues in full. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that some of the dues have been paid to some of the petitioners and the remaining dues could not be paid because of paucity of fund. 4. I find that many cases with similar grievances of the employees of the Corporation are coming up every day and in almost all the cases, similar plea of paucity of fund is taken on behalf of the Corporation. I have repeatedly held that such a plea is not sustainable. Once the dues of the employee are admitted, the same have to be paid, particularly in the cases where the employee has superannuated from service and his/her post-retirement dues have not been paid. It is the responsibility of the Corporation and the State Government under the provisions of the State Road Transport corporation Act (in short the Act) to see that the Corporation functions properly and is able to discharge its liabilities towards the employees of the corporation. In some of the cases, counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that although the state Government in discharge of its liabilities had made a provision in the budget for financing the Corporation but only a portion of it has been released. 5. I had also requested the learned advocate-General to find out as to what liabilities the State Government have to discharge towards proper functioning of the Corporation and whether the State Government has discharged its liabilities. So far I have not received any communication from the State. 6. In such circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the State government should discharge its statutory liabilities under the Act to enable the Corporation to function properly and discharge its liabilities at least towards its retired employees. 7. So far I have not received any communication from the State. 6. In such circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the State government should discharge its statutory liabilities under the Act to enable the Corporation to function properly and discharge its liabilities at least towards its retired employees. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala V/s. M. Padmanabham nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 , held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of the Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. It was further held that ". . . . . . the necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised 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. " 8. Accordingly, the respondents, the Managing Director and the Chief accounts Officer of the Corporation are directed to finalise the claims of the petitioners and other such employees within a period of two months of the receipt of the fresh claim from them. The said respondents-Officers of the corporation may approach the State government for release of the necessary fund along with the documents etc. in support of their claim for discharge of their liabilities towards the Corporation within two weeks of the receipt of the claim/claims, whereafter the State government through the Finance commissioner, who is permitted to be added as respondent and for whom learned Junior Counsel to Government pleader No. V. accepts notice, is directed to release the fund for which the State Government is liable within two weeks of the receipt of the requisition from the Corporation and in case there is no liability of the State government, then the Corporation must be intimated about it by a reasoned order by the respondent State government within the aforesaid time. The Corporation, shall, in any case, pay the admitted dues within two months of the receipt of fresh claim. The Corporation, shall, in any case, pay the admitted dues within two months of the receipt of fresh claim. However, it is made clear that if any part of the claim is not payable to any of the claimants, then the said respondents in the Corporation shall record reasons and communicate the same to the employee concerned within the aforesaid time. 9. The petitioners if still feel aggrieved, then they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. 10. If, however, the admitted dues are not paid within two months of the receipt of the fresh claim from the employee concerned, then they will be entitled for payment of penal interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date the said dues are payable till actual payment is made by the Corporation, besides that this Court will consider to initiate a contempt proceeding against the erring persons. 11. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Government pleader No. V and the learned counsel for the Corporation for needful. 13. The office is directed to prepare photo/cylostyled copies of the order and place it on each of the records. Order accordingly.