S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) RULE. In view of the fact that Ms. P. G. Davawala has put appearance on behalf of respondents, no need to send notice of Rule to the respondents. Reply to the special civil applications have been filed on behalf of respondents. Looking to the nature of case and as in these two special civil applications, a common question of fact and law has arisen the same are taken up for final hearing today and are being disposed of by this common order with consent of learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners prayed for declaration that the action on the part of respondents of withholding the interest on the amounts deposited by them under the National Savings Scheme, 1987, (N. S. S.) is illegal, unreasonable and without any authority of law. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 30. 4. 98, Annexure-L, under which the respondents have declined to regularize the N. S. S. account of the petitioners. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner opened an account bearing No. 8872 in National Savings Scheme, 1987. On the request made by petitioner for closure of the said account, the respondents though paid the principal amount of the deposit but refused to release the amount of interest so accrued on the principal amount under the guise and pretext that irregularly account was opened. The petitioner approached to the respondents for regularization of this account but that has also been declined. Hence these two special civil applications before this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if it is taken that it is an irregular N. S. S. account, then too, it is a mistake of the respondents and for which the petitioners could not have been penalized. Account has been opened in the month of March 1990 and immediately thereafter, this mistake has not been pointed out, but the respondents have retained this amount in the account. Only after the account has matured, at the time of its closing, this objection has been raised and the petitioners have been denied the interest. Account has been opened in the month of March 1990 and immediately thereafter, this mistake has not been pointed out, but the respondents have retained this amount in the account. Only after the account has matured, at the time of its closing, this objection has been raised and the petitioners have been denied the interest. Lastly, it is contended that the Finance Department has clarified the position for opening of N. S. S. account by the persons residing abroad but despite of this clarification, the respondents have opened the account of the petitioners and when it has reached the stage of closing, it is highly unjustified and arbitrary on the part of the welfare `state to deny interest. Lastly, it is contended that looking to these facts even if it is taken that this account was irregular, it should have been regularised but that prayer made by petitioners has also been declined. Summing up his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this matter is squarely covered by two decisions of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 6794 of 1987 decided on 27th March, 1988 and Special Civil Application No. 3088 of 1988 decided on 24/12/1993. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that N. S. S. account opened by petitioner was an irregular account. It is an account which has been opened contrary to the Clarification given by the Finance Department, Government of India, and even if it is a mistake committed by respondents, the petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof. It is next contended that even if this mistake was not earlier pointed out but when it has come to the notice of the respondents, the principal amount has been paid and interest, as the petitioners were not entitled for the same, has not been paid. So far as the two judgments of this Court on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that these cases were decided on the basis of their own facts. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this matter is squarely covered by two decisions of this Court on which reliance has been placed. As these matters are squarely covered by two judgments of this Court, though it is not necessary to go any more deep in the matter, but there are more peculiar facts of these two special civil applications, on which I consider it appropriate to make reference in this judgment. ( 8 ) IT is true that any error committed or mistake made by respondents is to be rectified, but if the mistake committed by respondents results in causing or depriving monetary loss to the person concerned the matter needs to be considered in a different context. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are in any manner responsible for mistake committed by respondents in this case. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have committed any fraud or otherwise have misguided the respondents or fraudulently getting opened the N. S. S. account from them. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have concealed any fact from them while praying for opening of N. S. S. account. So the respondents, after knowing all the facts, still have opened the N. S. S. accounts of the petitioners. It is understandable that in past this mistake could have been rectified but this has not been done. The respondents have kept this amount with them for a considerable long period and when the petitioners have approached for withdrawal of the same, then only at that stage, this objection has been raised. In view of this fact, it is a case where the respondents are estopped from their own conduct to deny this benefit of interest to the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE matter can be examined from another aspect. Whatever doubt was there in the mind of respondents it has been made clear by Clarification/ Notification of the Finance Department, Government of India and this Clarification is given in the year 1988. ( 9 ) THE matter can be examined from another aspect. Whatever doubt was there in the mind of respondents it has been made clear by Clarification/ Notification of the Finance Department, Government of India and this Clarification is given in the year 1988. So despite of clear position on the subject of opening of account by Non Resident Indian under National Savings Scheme, 1987, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to have the account opened under the said scheme. It is a case where the regularization of such an irregular account is permissible. In the facts of this case, the attitude and approach of respondents even not to regularize the account of petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Under the order, Annexure-L, dated 30th April 1998, no reason, good, bad or indifferent has been given in support of the decision not to regularize the N. S. S. Accounts of petitioners. The Union of India is a Welfare State and it should not have acted in a manner and fashion in which ordinary trader or businessman acts. Its action should have been fair, reasonable and impartial. True, it is the mistake of the officers of the Union of India, but for this mistake, coupled with the fact that this mistake was never pointed out to the petitioners, and the amount was kept with them for a long period, this approach of respondents not to regularize the N. S. S. accounts of the petitioners is difficult to digest and appreciate. For this mistake, it is true that the Union of India may suffer monetary loss, but being a Welfare State, it should have acted as a Welfare State and the amount of interest should have been paid to the petitioners and for this loss, appropriate action should have been taken against the defaulting officers and this loss could have been made good by recovering the amount of interest to be paid to the petitioners from those officers. But instead of taking appropriate action against its own defaulting officers, it is really shocking and sorry state of affairs that the person dealt with the Union of India and opened the N. S. S. account has been penalized. But instead of taking appropriate action against its own defaulting officers, it is really shocking and sorry state of affairs that the person dealt with the Union of India and opened the N. S. S. account has been penalized. ( 10 ) IN the result, both the special civil applications are allowed and the respondent are directed to pay to the petitioners, interest on the principal amount of N. S. S. account as admissible under National Savings Scheme, 1987. Rule made absolute. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/= as cost of each petition to the petitioner concerned. .