Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. -in this writ application the prayer is for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay post-retirement dues of the petitioner, who superannuated on 31st January, 1994. According to the petitioner, he was paid nothing till the writ petition was filed on 4.1.96 except the amount of the Group Insurance. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer under respondent No.4 at the time of his superannuation. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Executive engineer, Road Division, Bhagalpur (respondent No.4 ). In the counter affidavit it is stated that vide order contained in letter No.147, dated 3.2.96 a provisional pension to the tune of 90 per cent, has been sanctioned. In para 7 it is stated that the petitioner has also been paid the General Provident Fund amount by the appropriate authority. However, no date has been mentioned about the payment of the said amount. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the gratuity amount of the petitioner has not been paid at all, besides the remaining 10 per cent, of the pension amount and the full amount of the Leave Encashment. The learned S. C.10 submitted that the aforesaid payments have not been made, as cash advance to the tune of Rs.2,47,597.39 Paise approximately outstanding against the petitioner while he was serving as junior Engineer under respondent No.5 has not been accounted for by him. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner was also in possession of several materials like bitumen and other road construction materials, which the petitioner was duty-bound to account for by way of making over charge at the time of his superannuation from service. It is alleged that the petitioner did not take over charge of the Government materials entrusted to him. In this regard the learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the aforesaid subject matter was also under investigation and enquiry was conducted by the vigilance Department of the Government and lot of documents including the Measurement Books/ and vouchers were seized since there were serious allegations of embezzlement in respect of, the construction works, which were being executed by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the Service Book of the petitioner was in his possession till 18.1.96, when in response to the request of the respondent No.4 the same was made available by the petitioner in the office of the answering respondent. 4. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that in order to expedite clearance of the legal dues of the petitioner a request was made by respondent No.4 to the Superintendent of Police (Cabinet Vigilance) Department, bhagalpur vide letter dated 29.1.96 for making him available the records including M. Sc. seized by them in connection with the investigation. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was informed by the deponent through letter dated 29.1.96 calling upon him to perform his legal duties and make over charge of the materials assigned to him in order to facilitate to clear his claim for pension, etc. It is alleged that the petitioner did not respond even to this request of the respondent No.4 and he did not appear to explain about such outstanding dues. 5. It is thus, submitted by the learned S. C.10 that due to the aforementioned reasons, the payment of the remaining ost-retiral dues of the petitioner have not been made. 6. A reply to the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which it is admitted that the aforementioned amount was granted to him as temporary advance for execution of work till March, 90 and after the execution of work he recorded the measurement in the relevant measurement books and submitted the measurement books along with all vouchers to the Assistant Engineer, who, in turn, is learned to have submitted to the executive Engineer for disposal. As regards the road construction materials lying under the charge of the petitioner, it is stated that the Superintending engineer vide letter No.1639 (6) and 53 dated 4.12.1995 and 27.1.1995 passed order for transfer of bitumen to various divisions and other surplus materials were carried from Jagdish Godown to sabour Godown at Government cost to facilitate taking over charge of the same. The petitioner has stated that the submitted all the relevant records with m. Sc. , vouchers, Accounts Register etc. and thus, according to him he has discharged his responsibilities properly. The petitioner has stated that the submitted all the relevant records with m. Sc. , vouchers, Accounts Register etc. and thus, according to him he has discharged his responsibilities properly. Further, it is stated by the Department or by the Vigilance anything in respect of the alleged investigation of embezzlement in regard to the construction works which were being executed by the petitioner. He has also alleged that the respondents are not complying with their part of duty by taking charge from the petitioner and thereby keeping the petitioner apprived of his post-retiral dues since his retirement on 31st january, 1994. 7. The learned Counsel for the state submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has yet to make over charge of certain materials, the payment of the post-retiral dues is not possible. I am unable to appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. It is only when the writ petition is filed for payment of post-retiral dues that such plea is taken by the State Authorities just to justify their innotion. If rule permits the authorities to make deductions/adjustments of the amount payable to the government servant against their post-retiral dues for any account of dues for which the Government servant is liable, that must be finally determined by the authorities concerned latest within a month of his retirement and necessary sanction order for payment of the admitted dues along with a reasoned order in regard to deductions made, must be served on the Government servant within the aforesaid time. There cannot be any justification to keep a Government servant deprived of his dues which are admittedly payable to him after his retirement for a longer period, like in the instant case it has been kept withheld for now two and half years. 8. By now it is well settled that in case of any allegation of misappropriation or relating to any other charge the state authorities, unless take action in terms of Rule 43 (b) or Rule 139 of bihar Pension Rules, the Government servant cannot be denied of his post-retiral dues. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Md. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Md. Idris, reported in 1995 (2)P. L. J. R. (S. C.) 51 and in the case of state of Kerala and others V/s. M. Padnabhan nair, reported in A. I. R.1985 S. C.356. 9. In fact, in most of the cases including the present case, I find that the concerned authorities in the State do not act to finalise the post-retiral dues of the Government servant until a writ petition is filed in this Court. This attitude of the concerned authorities, in my opinion, is liable to be concerned. If the authorities are vested with power under certain Rules, they must act upon it, take final decision and communicate the reasoned order disposing of the claim of a Govt. servant relating to his post-retiral dues to him within a month of his retirement. I cannot appreciate that they only start acting after notice of the writ-petition is given to them through their learned State Counsel. 10. In the instant case from the counter-affidavit I find that in regard to the post-retiral dues of the petitioner, except the due relating to Group insurance and G. P. Fund the respondent no.4 started taking steps only after filing of the writ-petition in the year 1996, i. e. almost two years after the retirement of the government servant. Even from that date, by now almost six months have elapsed, but respondent no.4 has not taken final decision as is permissible under the Rules in order to finalise the payment of the admitted post-retiral dues of the petitioner. This, in my opinion, depicto the harassing attitude of respondent No.4 and accordingly, I condemn his action in not releasing the post-retiral dues of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this writ-application is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4 to finalise the entire post-retiral dues of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and necessary sanction order be issued within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also be paid interest at the rate of 10 percent, per annum over the admitted dues from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment is made. The petitioner shall also be paid interest at the rate of 10 percent, per annum over the admitted dues from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment is made. However, in regard to the dues, for which interest is provided under the statutory provision, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim for the aforesaid 10 per cent, interest, over and above the statutory interest. 12. In the circumstances, aforementioned, the amount of interest shall be paid to the petitioner by respondent No.4 from his own pocket. The respondent No.4 is directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,500 from his own pocket within the aforesaid time. Non-compliance of the aforesaid direction will be seriously viewed and this Court will consider to initiate a contempt of Court proceeding and impose appropriate punishment against respondent No.4. Petition Allowed.