Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. By the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the last portion of the order, contained in Memo No.1174 dated 21st April, 1995, by which while it has been decided that the petitioner is notiable to pay penal rent, it has been ordered that the petitioner will not receive any interest over the provident fund amount for the delayed payment. Further prayer has been made for direction on the Respondents to pay interest with respect to delayed payment of pension which was not paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from date of retirement. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the Respondent-State and, retired in April, 1988 from the post of lozer Driver. The Respondents when did not choose to release the post retirement benefits of pension and general provident fund, the petitioner moved before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4970 of 1993 for such payment. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents issued a pension payment order on 23rd Sept.1993. This Court by order dated llth May, 1994, while took into account that the pension payment order has already been issued, so far as provident fund is concerned, it was ordered to pay the same in favour of the petitioner. In the said writ petition, the Respondents raised an objection and stated that the petitioner was liable to pay penal rent and a sum of Rs.4,225/- was liable to be recovered from such retirement benefits, in penal rent. This Court directed the authorities to decide the matter and then to release the provident fund amount in favour of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the Respondents have come out with the impugned order dated 21st April, 1995. By the impugned order, while it has been held that the petitioner is not liable to pay any penal rent. It has been ordered that the petitioner is not entitled for interest for delayed payment of provident fund. It is stated that the provident fund amount has already been paid in favour of the. .- petitioner on 18th July, 1995, but the respondents have not paid the statutory interest to which the petitioner was entitled under the law. 5. It has been ordered that the petitioner is not entitled for interest for delayed payment of provident fund. It is stated that the provident fund amount has already been paid in favour of the. .- petitioner on 18th July, 1995, but the respondents have not paid the statutory interest to which the petitioner was entitled under the law. 5. So far as pension is concerned, it is stated that the pension of the petitioner was paid by virtue of the authority slip dated 20th September, 1993, after much delay, when the petitioner retired from service in April, 1988, and for that the claim has been made for grant of penal interest in favour of the petitioner. 6. In this connection, the counsel for the petitioner relied on Finance departments Circular contained in memo No.8195 dated 7th November, 1981. 7. By the aforesaid circular, the state Government decidel and directed to pay the post retirement benefits of pension within three months from the date of retirement without any delay. It was further decided that if the delay is caused in the matter of payment of pension, more than three months and not because of any action on the part of the retired employee, in that case, the State government will pay interest @ 5% per annum, for the period beyond three months, from the due date of retirement and such amount towards interest is to be recoverable from the erring employer who was responsible for such delayed payment. 8. It is to be taken into note that earlier, the petitioner was paid provident fund amount of Rs.2,727/- after deduction of the penal rent amount, which was also paid back to the petitioner without calculating the statutory interest thereon. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. According to the counsel for the Respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner earlier moved before this Court and this Court in C. W. J. C No.4970 of 1993 did not allow any such interest in favour of the petitioner. He further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jung bahadur Singh and others V/s. State of bihar and others (1987 P. L. J. R.64 ). 10. It will be evident from the writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.4970 of 1993)that the petitioner prayed for pension and provident fund therein. He further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jung bahadur Singh and others V/s. State of bihar and others (1987 P. L. J. R.64 ). 10. It will be evident from the writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.4970 of 1993)that the petitioner prayed for pension and provident fund therein. By that time, the circular aforesaid dated 7th november, 1981 was already in existence. It is further admitted position that the retired employees are entitled for provident fund amount, after calculation of statutory interest thereon, which was about 10% prior to the year 1985 and 12.5 % since the year 1985. 11. So far as interest is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner never claimed for any penal interest at that point of time, but the same does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for any statutory interest and/or any other interest, in terms with rule/circular/guideline laid down by the State government. 12. So far as the case of Jung bahadur Singh (supra) is concerned, the same has got nothing to do with the present case. 13. In the present case, the principle of res judicata is not applicable in view of the fact that while this Court took into note in the earlier writ petition that pension payment order was issued, it shall be automatically presumed that the same has been issued in terms with the Government guidelines, including the Circular dated 7th November, 1981 Further, when this court directed to pay the provident fund amount, the same automatically means the provident fund amount, including the statutory interest thereon, as laid down under the Government rule/circular. 14. In the aforesaid background, the contention as raised by the counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petition with direction to the Respondents to pay the petitioner interest @ 5% per annum, in terms with Circular dated 7th November, 1981 with respect to delayed payment of pension, which is to be calculated from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date the pension amount has already been paid. 16. The Respondents are also directed to pay the petitioner the statutory interest with respect to the provident fund amount to be counted upto April, 1995 i. e. the month provident fund amount has been paid in favour of the petitioner. 17. 16. The Respondents are also directed to pay the petitioner the statutory interest with respect to the provident fund amount to be counted upto April, 1995 i. e. the month provident fund amount has been paid in favour of the petitioner. 17. This order of the Court is to be complied by the Respondents within a total period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. If the Respondents fail to comply with the order aforesaid within the stipulated period, in that case, the respondents will have to pay cost of rs.2000/- in favour of the petitioner. Apart from that the petitioner may also move before this Court for initiating a contempt proceeding against the erring officer/employee. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Order Accordingly.