Judgment 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-payment of the amount of G.P.F. with statutory interest, leave encashment for 240 days and refund of security deposit of Rs. 500/- on his retirement on 31.12.1989 while posted at Deoghar Anchal under Deputy Commissioner,Deoghar (Respondent no.1). 2. Notice of this writ petition was served on the Respondents through the learned Advocate General representing the State of Bihar and its officials and through the Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Accountant General, long back on 23.8.1999. However, despite service of notice, no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State- Respondents. 3. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2000 after noticing the fact that the petitioner though retired from service on 31.12.1989 yet has been kept deprived of his legitimate post-retiral dues, adjourned the matter to 1.5.2000 on the request of the learned State Counsel with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Respondent no.1) should produce necessary sanction order/authorisation for payment of admitted dues of the petitioner along with the calculation chart. Again on 1.5.2000 there was no response from the said Respondent and as a matter of last indulgence, this Court adjourned it to 3rd May, 2000. On 3rd May, 2000 again there was no response whereupon on the request made by the learned counsel for the State one more indulgence was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by Respondent no. 1 from his own pocket with the Secretary, Patna High Court Council for Legal Aid and Advice. 4. On 8.5.2000 counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 & 2 along with supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, in paragraph 5 of which it is stated that the petitioner has been paid G.P.F. amount due along with uptodate statutory interest and in this connection three authority slips amounting to Rs. 8,548/-, 13,631/- and 1,156/- have been annexed as Annexure-A series. However, in subsequent paragraph, it is stated that because of late filing of the petition for final withdrawal by the petitioner i.e. on 24.1.2000 he was not entitled to interest for the belated period as per the notification of the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna, contained in Memo no. 3373 dated 6.5.1988 (Annexure-B). With respect to the earned leave, it is stated that the same has been paid vide Annexure-D on 5.5.2000. 3373 dated 6.5.1988 (Annexure-B). With respect to the earned leave, it is stated that the same has been paid vide Annexure-D on 5.5.2000. With respect to the security deposit, it is stated that the petitioner started his service from Jarmundi of Dumka district on 20.12.1954 and lastly superannuated on 31.12.1989 from Deoghar Anchal of Deoghar district. The amount of security deposit was with Dumka district. In this connection 47 Nazir receipts regarding deposit of security money were produced by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 550/- has been paid by the petitioner against security deposit in anticipation of the amount being transferred from Dumka district. 5. It appears that only after coercive action was taken by this Court that the Respondents woke up to discharge their liability/duty. The only plea taken in the said counter affidavit is that the Respondents came to know only on 2.5.2000 about the decision taken by this Court on 27.4.2000, hence, they could not comply or take steps in this connection in time. In the main counter affidavit, an another plea has been taken that the original service book of the petitioner is not available. A duplicate service book has been received from the Circle Office, Madhupur that is the previous place of posting of the petitioner. As regards subscription in G.P.F. account up to 1981-82, it is stated that the petitioner is partially correct that he is entitled to get G.P.F. account at the end of the financial year but the Director, G.P.F. was not in a position to issue the same because the balance sheet up to 1981-82 has not been tansferred to the Director, G.P.F. accordingly, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner from the District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar. It is further stated that even on getting the balance transferred by the A.G., Bihar, Patna, it is not proper for the authority to issue authority slip because in the balance from 1967-68 to 1981-82 transferred by the A.G., Bihar, Patna the entire credit and debit are missing. It is further stated that even on getting the balance transferred by the A.G., Bihar, Patna, it is not proper for the authority to issue authority slip because in the balance from 1967-68 to 1981-82 transferred by the A.G., Bihar, Patna the entire credit and debit are missing. In reply to the submission of the petitioner that he contacted the office of Respondent no.1 and also of Respondent no.2, but having failed to get the payment, he was compelled to file this writ petition, it is stated that the said statement is wrong and it alleged that he was so careless that he filed application for final withdrawal of G.P.F. on 24.1.2000 though he retired on 31.12.1989. 6. As regards the claim of the petitioner for refund of security deposit, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the same was permitted to be drawn by the petitioner on his own application on 10.12.1990 but in view of the claim raised by him in the writ petition he has been paid the said amount again with interest of Rs. 40,000/- on 9.5.2000 vide Annexure- G to the second supplementary counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the said second supplementary counter affidavit has been served just now in Court, he has not been able to get instruction from the petitioner, but as it appears from the record that earlier amount was paid towards N.S.C. and not as against jthe security deposit made by him. However, he fairly agreed that if any such excess payment has been made the same shall be refunded by the petitioner immediately. 7. Thus, from the facts aforementioned, it is quite evident that no step was taken by the Respondents since after the retirement of the petitioner from service on 31.12.1989 to discharge their liability/duty relating to aforementioned post-retirement dues. As per Rule 189 of the Bihar Pension Rules, a Government servent was required to submit a formal application for pension 18 months in advance from the date of its actual retirement. It appears that 18 months was reduced to 12 months vide GO no. 1030/61-12923F, dated 4.9.1962. in order to avoid occurring of delay in finalisation of pension case. The State Government further vide memo no. It appears that 18 months was reduced to 12 months vide GO no. 1030/61-12923F, dated 4.9.1962. in order to avoid occurring of delay in finalisation of pension case. The State Government further vide memo no. Pen-1032/67-8739 F, dated 13.7.1967 decided to simplify the procedure for grant of pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, thereby the requirement for submission of formal application by the Government servant was relaxed and it has been decided that no formal application for pension is necessary in case of Gazetted or Non-Gazetted Government servant. But the head of the office in case of Non- Gazetted Government servant shall draw immediately after retirement of the Government servant an application in form 4 and submit it to the Accountant General, Bihar with all necessary papers so that the Audit office may make a report. With respect to the Gazetted Government servant it was decided that pension papers should be prepared initially by the Accountant General and in this regard sanction of the administrative authority to the pension will be assumed after three months have elapsed from the date of reporting or date of retirement whichever is earlier. 8. While hearing pension cases for quite some time, this Court has experienced that usually the sanctioning authority never takes steps at appropriate time in order to get the necessary formalities completed before a person retires as per the Government instruction. In the present case, there is no explanation even worth name for causing delay of 11 years in release of the afoementioned pensionary dues of the petitioner except in regard to the G.P.F. about which learned Additional Advocate General No. Ill has contended that the same could not be paid because of the lapses on the part of the petitioner as he submitted his application form only on 24.1.2000. As such according to him as per the provisions contained in Finance Department Memo no. 1-04/88-3373 dated 6.5.1988 the petitioner will be liable for full statutory interest only if application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount is filed within six months otherwise he shall be paid statutory interest only for the period initially up to six months since after his retirement and thereafter for the period after filing of the application. 9. 1-04/88-3373 dated 6.5.1988 the petitioner will be liable for full statutory interest only if application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount is filed within six months otherwise he shall be paid statutory interest only for the period initially up to six months since after his retirement and thereafter for the period after filing of the application. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that copy of the second supplementary counter affidavit has been served just now in Court, as such, he is not in a position to admit as to on what date the application for withdrawal of G.P.F. was filed by the petitioner. However, he submitted that under Rule 32 of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules, 1948 read with Section 4 of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 the duty has been cast upon the authority, namely, the Accounts Officer to make payment of the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber on the date the same becomes payable i.e. in the case of retirement on the date of retirement and in the case of death soon thereafter. It is submitted that the Respondent-authorities did not discharge their duties and have tried to throw blame on the petitioner to cover their lapses. 10. This Court in the facts and circumstances aforementioned finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 32 of the 1948 Rules provides that when the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber in the fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment, as provided in Section 4 of the Provident Fund Act, 1925. As per the Government circular contained in memo no. F2-4046/59/19938 F., dated 22.10.1959 which was issued with the object to eliminate the delay in payment of provident fund it was decided that the Head of Office/Department under whom the subscriber last served shall collect the balance of the subscriber from the various offices in which the subscriber served during the last twelve months prior to his quitting service/death and also the information regarding any advance taken or non-refundable withdrawal made by the subscriber. Section 4 of 1925 Act provides that when under the rules of any Government, or Railway Provident Fund, the sum standing to the credit of any subscriber or depositor or the balance thereof, after the making of any deduction authorised by this Act, has become payable, the Officer whose duty is to make the payment shall pay the sum or balance, as the case may be, to the subscriber or depositor, and in case of death as required in clauses (a), (b), (c) to subsection (1) of Section 4. This is reiterated in the prescribed form also, a photo copy of which has been annexed as Annexure- C. Para 3 of the said form fixes the responsibility on Head of the office to fill in the form after getting the verification done with respect to any advance within 12 months before his retirement. It is true that under aforementioned Finance Department memo dated 6.5.1988 interest is payable only up to six months from the date of retirement and in case no application is filed within the said time then for the period after application is submitted for withdrawal of G.P.F. 11. This Court is unable to appreciate that as to how such Government decision can be sustained specially where the authorities have not discharged their statutory duty. It is not the case of the Respondents that they ever took any action pursuant to Rule 32 read with Section 4, nor they have discharged their duties even as per the prescribed form, which requires for completion of necessary formalities for filling up the same by the head of the office in cases of Non- Gazetted Government servant. Moreover, this Court does not find any justification for withholding the statutory interest on the amount retained by the State Government. This will be against the all canons of justice and equity as well. 12. In the instant case as I have already noticed above, the Respondents only plea to deprive the amount of G.P.F. is that the Director of Provident Fund was not in a position to issue the same because the balance sheet Up to 1981- 82 was not transferred from A.G., Bihar, Patna and that the balance transferred by the A.G. showed the entire credit and debit missing. This, in my opinion, all the more cast duty on the head of the office to get necessary information collected from the various places of posting which is maintained in the Department as well as in the service book. In any view of the matter, there cannot be any justification to keep the petitioner deprived of his provident fund for which at least the account was admittedly available. This only depicts the callousness of respondent no.1, so much so, that despite repeated indulgence granted by this Court till date the information regarding amount for the said period has not been collected and according to the supplementary counter affidavit an authorisation has been issued only on the basis of average. This Court fails to appreciate how this is permissible. The petitioner has been kept deprived of the aforementioned legitimate dues now for over 11 years and despite even grant of repeated indulgence by this Court, Respondent no. 1 has not taken care to get the necessary information collected and finalise the full claim and at the same time has kept him deprived of uptodate statutory interest. In one paragraph he has stated that the interest has been paid uptodate but in the very next paragraph he stated that it is not admissible, which obviously is an attempt to mislead this Court. Authority slips annexed as Annexure-A series do not show that the petitioner has been paid statutory interest uptodate. From the said facts the vindictive attitude of respondent no. 1 is writ large. Even in the matter of payment of leave encashment it has taken 11 years to pay the same without any interest thereto. This Court, thus, finds it to be a fit case for awarding heavy penal interest and cost to be recovered from the pocket of respondent no.1. 13. The writ application is, thus, allowed. Respondent no.1 is directed to take necessary steps for payment of the remaining dues of G.P.F. with upodate statutory interest on the entire amount within one week. The District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar (Respondent no.2) is directed to issue authority slip forthwith on receipt of the sanction order from Respondent no.1. 14. 13. The writ application is, thus, allowed. Respondent no.1 is directed to take necessary steps for payment of the remaining dues of G.P.F. with upodate statutory interest on the entire amount within one week. The District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar (Respondent no.2) is directed to issue authority slip forthwith on receipt of the sanction order from Respondent no.1. 14. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for penal interest on the amount of leave encashment 18% per annum from the due date till the payment has been made and on G.P.F. uptodate statutory interest which shall be calculated and paid by issuing necessary sanction order by Respondent no. 1 within two weeks. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner will be entitled for cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount of penal interest and cost should be paid within the aforesaid time and be recovered from Respondent no.1. 15. Petitioner is directed to approach Respondent no.1 with respect to the claim relating to security deposit and in case excess amount has been received by him as alleged the same must be refunded to Respondent no.1 without any delay, or he may request in writing for adjustment of the said amount from his aforementioned remaining dues. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of any part of this order, the concerned authority shall not draw his salary and allowance till the order is complied.