Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner, who is the widow of the. deceased Government servant, has sought for a direction to the respondents authorities to pay Rs.10,182.49 along with an interest at the rate of 18% from the date it became due, but was illegally deducted at the time of payment of family pension to her. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant general (respondent No.5 ). However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the officials of the respondent state, namely, the Director, Administration-cum-Secretary (Agriculture) and the Joint Director (Agriculture) Kosi division, Saharsa (respondents No.2 and 3 respectively ). It is stated in the said counter affidavit that the payments were made to the petitioner after deducting the amount of Rs.10,182.49, being the amount of seed in his stock at the time of death which the husband of the petitioner did not deposit in his lifetime. 3. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1969. The petitioner was kept deprived of the pensionary benefits for 22 long years as she was finally paid the same only in the year 1991 and that too after deducting the aforementioned amount. 4. It is not the case of the respondents that any action was initiated and final order was passed with respect to any liability during the lifetime of the deceased Government servant. I have gone across a number of cases in which such pleas are taken on behalf of the respondents only after the death of the government servant employees. 5. In the instant case, from the very fact that the widow (petitioner) was kept deprived of the dues payable to her husband or to her for 22 long years, it appears that only to cover up the gross lapses on the part of the State authorities, such a plea has been taken. No document has been brought on the record to show that the husband of the petitioner was ever entrusted with the seed, the price of which was Rs.10,182.49 and that the same was not accounted for by him. Thus, in my opinion, the aforementioned deduction made is mala fide only to cover up the gross lapses on the part of the State authorities in harassing the widow for 22 years. 6. Thus, in my opinion, the aforementioned deduction made is mala fide only to cover up the gross lapses on the part of the State authorities in harassing the widow for 22 years. 6. Learned Counsel for the State, with reference to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the. counter affidavit, submits that the said deduction was done under the orders of the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. In reply, Mr. Pathak, learned Additional standing Counsel appearing for the accountant General has produced a photo copy of the letter written by the office of the Accountant General to the joint Director (Agriculture), Saharsa which show that the Accountant general has already intimated to the joint Director on 13th March, 1996 that the said deduction was illegally made, photo copy of the said letter is being kept on the record of this case. 7. The aforementioned facts only depict the most callous attitude of the joint Director, Agriculture, Saharsa, who despite the said intimation to him from the Office of the Accountant general, filed the said counter affidavit on 16-12-1996 contesting the claim of the petitioner and that too without filing any evidence in support thereof. 8. Under such circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforementioned amount and also a penal interest at the rate of 18% over the amount which has already been paid or is to be paid right from the due date till the payment is made, besides a cost of rs.5,000.00 (five thousand) which shall also be paid along with the aforementioned amount within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The Agriculture Production commissioner, Bihar, Patna is directed to examine this matter and fix the responsibility of the persons who have caused such a long delay in payment of the retiral dues and take appropriate action for recovery of the amount of penal interest and cost from them and file an affidavit in this Court about the same within eight weeks. 10. The writ application stands disposed of. However after filing of the aforesaid affidavit by the Agriculture production Commissioner, the matter shall be posted under the heading "orders". Order Accordingly.