Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order/direction for payment of retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, LIC, G.P.F., leave encashment besides salary of one month with penal interest. 2. This Court vide order dated 5.10.1999 on the request of the State and its officials adjourned the matter for three weeks and, meanwhile, directed to take instructions and file counter affidavit especially in regard to Annexure 4 before the matter is listed next. The respondents were also directed to issue necessary sanction order for payment of the admitted dues of the petitioner. 3. When despite opportunity granted vide said order no counter affidavit was fifed, as a matter of last indulgence, this case was adjourned to be listed on the next appointed date on payment of cost of Rs. 5007 by the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai (respondent no.3) from his own pocket to be deposited with the Secretary, Patna High Court Council for Legal Aid & Advice. On the request, a copy of the said order was also supplied to the learned counsel for the State. 4. On 3.11.1999 again neither counter affidavit was filed nor sanction order had been produced. Respondent no.3 did not even bother to deposit the cost. In view of the said attitude of respondent no. 3 showing gross disrespect of the order of this Court, he was directed to appear in person. 5. Mr. Jai Kant Paswan, who is the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai, has appeared before this Court today pursuant to the said order dated 3.11.1999. He has deposited the amount of cost but has not bothered to file any affidavit till date. A counter affidavit has only been filed on behalf of the Accountant General in which it is stated that sanction order for payment of DCRG was not communicated by the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai, despite reminder. Today, an attempt has been made by respondent no,3 to justify his inaction in the matter of payment of post retiral dues of the petitioner, who retired from service on 27.2.1997, by orally saying that the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 1961 itself was on the basis of a forged document relating to date of birth. 6. This Court is unable to appreciate such oral plea taken on behalf of respondent no.3. 6. This Court is unable to appreciate such oral plea taken on behalf of respondent no.3. It is not alleged that any action depart entally or by way of judicial proceeding was ever taken against this petitioner while he was in service with respect to the aforementioned allegation. It is only after lapse of 38 years since the appointment of the petitioner and almost three years since after his retirement that such oral objections are sought to be taken by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the State has failed to show that under what provision of law the payment of post retiral dues of the petitioner can be withheld on such oral excuse taken on behalf of respondent no.3. In my opinion, this only shows that respondent no.3 has mala fide withheld the payment of the dues of the petitioner on wholly untenable ground now for almost three years. 7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with an exemplary cost of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) which shall be paid by respondent no.3 from his own pocket to the petitioner within two weeks. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court directs that the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum from due date till the payment is made which shall also be calculated and paid by issuing the necessary sanction order by the concerned authority within three weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.4) is directed to issue necessary authority slip within a week of the receipt of the necessary sanction order.