Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is widow of late Sidhnath Singh, who was an Assistant teacher in Government School, Durbdiha, Bhojpur. Her husband on his appointment as Assistant teacher joined the said School on 1,1.1979 and later died in harness on 5.6.1988, leaving behind the widow alongwith her two minor sons. It is claimed that after the demise of her husband, petitioner filed all relevant forms/documents required for family pension, gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment dues before the Headmaster of the said School (Respondent no. 5) who recommended and forwarded all the documents to Respondent no. 2 for necessary action long back on 4.9.1989 vide Annexure-1 & 2. Respondent no. 2 sanctioned Rs. 96,000/- as Group Insurance money of the deceased husband of the petitioner which she received in the year 1989. She, however, fell ill and could not pursue the matter with respect to other retirement-cum-death benefits. On 8.2.1991 she filed representation for payment of the entire dues vide Annexure-4, and later went to the office of Respondents for early payment and also for her appointment on compassionate ground, but she was simply assured. She also filed several representations including before the District Education Officer, Bhojpur (Respondent no. 2), but all went in vain, which compelled her to file the present writ application. 2. Despite service of notice on Respondents represented by the learned Advocate General long back on 13.8.1999 neither any counter affidavit was filed nor the Respondents acted promptly for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. On 26.4.2000 this Court having realised the agony of the widow, who was made to suffer for almost 12 years adjourned the matter for day after tomorrow with a direction to the District Education Officer, Bhojpur (Respondent no. 2) to produce necessary sanction order with respect to the entire admissible dues, failing which he was directed to appear before this Court. Thereafter the matter, however, could be taken up only on 19.5.2000 when a counter affidavit sworn by Respondent no. 2 was filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3. In the said counter affidavit, Respondent no. 2 claims to have joined the office at Bhojpur on 7.1.2000 and for the first time came to know about the case on 24.4.2000 when a wireless message was received from the office of the Advocate General. It is alleged that vide Memo no. 1 to 4. 3. In the said counter affidavit, Respondent no. 2 claims to have joined the office at Bhojpur on 7.1.2000 and for the first time came to know about the case on 24.4.2000 when a wireless message was received from the office of the Advocate General. It is alleged that vide Memo no. 402 dated 22.12.1988, the then District Education Officer had asked the Headmaster of the School to furnish the pension papers and service book so that final pension could have been made, but no papers has been received. It is further alleged that vide Memo no. 975 dated 7.10.1999 she was further directed to furnish pension papers for payment of family pension and pass-book of G.P.F. account so that final withdrawal on G.P.F. could be sanctioned, but the said letter was received back with postal remarks that refused to accept. It is further claimed that Respondent no. 2 took immediate action and sent special messenger for collecting the pension papers from the Headmaster of the school, who himself went and obtained signature on pension paper as well as final withdrawal application with respect to G.P.F. account. Respondent no. 2 claims to have issued orders for payment of provisional pension as well as provisional gratuity and intimation about the same was also sent to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The bill for payment of provisional family pension amounting to Rs. 11,616/- was presented under bill no. 25/2000-2001 and for provisional gratuity amounting to Rs. 9,832/- was presented under bill no. 24/2000-2001 on 4.5.2000. Cash in lieu of earned leave due was also sanctioned and a bill no. 26/2000-2001 was presented on 4.5.2000. ft is stated that all the three bills have been passed for payment but could not be presented in the Bank due to the strike on 11.5.2000 and he has undertaken that the Bank drafts will be obtained on Monday i.e. 15th May, 2000 from the Bank. As regards, final withdrawal of G.P.F., it is stated that payment in death cases can be made only after the approval of the Department and the deponent had forwarded the application to the Under Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education vide Memo no. 170 dated 3.5.2000. As regards, final withdrawal of G.P.F., it is stated that payment in death cases can be made only after the approval of the Department and the deponent had forwarded the application to the Under Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education vide Memo no. 170 dated 3.5.2000. As regards, earlier application filed by the petitioner, it is stated that it does not appear to have been received in the office of the deponent and was not forwarded by the then Headmaster of the school. It is alleged that the petitioner should also cooperate and furnish a photograph and other relevant papers so that steps may be taken for payment of final family pension to her. She should also submit the service book of her husband which is in her possession. 4. A reply affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is alleged that the Respondent have tried to mislead the Court and harass the petitioner. It is alleged that Respondent no. 2 had laid lame excuses that for the first time he came to know about the aforesaid case on 24.4.2000. After the letter dated 22nd December, 1988, contained in Annexure-A Respondent no. 5 recommended all the documents along with his letter on 4.8.1989 vide Annexure-2. Petitioner has asserted that all the relevant papers along with photograph were submitted by her in the year 1989, which is clear from Annexure-1 series of the main writ application. It is further stated that again on 2.5.2000, brother of the petitioner, namely, Jitendra Singh submitted all the documents to Respondent no. 5 vide Annexure-8 annexed to the said reply affidavit. As a matter of fact, all the relevant documents which are necessary for payment of retirement-cum-death benefit are before Respondent no. 2 but he only with a view to harass her and to save his skin has taken the said excuses in the counter affidavit. It is stated that all the bills contained in Annexure-E, F and G were prepared on 4.5.2000, but Respondent no. 2 sat over the matter for ten days and made false statement that the Bank draft will be obtained on 15th May, 2000, which has not been received by the petitioner till date i.e. 19.5.2000. Respondent no. It is stated that all the bills contained in Annexure-E, F and G were prepared on 4.5.2000, but Respondent no. 2 sat over the matter for ten days and made false statement that the Bank draft will be obtained on 15th May, 2000, which has not been received by the petitioner till date i.e. 19.5.2000. Respondent no. 2 has malafide shifted his responsibility upon Under Secretary for non-payment of G.P.F. It is stated that the petitioner has always fully cooperated and the plea taken in regard to non cooperation is malafide and only with a view to save his skin. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been made to suffer the agony on account of non- release of death-cum-retiral dues of her husband including family pension now for almost 12 long years. This inaction on the part of the Respondents with respect to the claim of the petitioner is malafide only to harass the petitioner as she was not able to satisfy the demand of the Respondents for finalising her pension, on account of which she every time was simply assured that she will be paid her dues and at the same time told that it will take time tor preparation of all papers, which will travel from one table to another. Malafide is further evident from the fact that now after 12 years, the Respondents have taken the plea that earlier application of the petitioner does not appear to have been received in the office of Respondent no. 2 and was not forwarded by then Headmaster of the school without holding any enquiry when the pension papers were in fact forwarded by the then Headmaster on 4.9.1989 vide Annexure-2 and the same was received. The action of Respondent no. 2 on the face of record is malafide and vindictive, so much so that even despite the order of this Court to produce necessary sanction order with respect to entire admissible dues by 28th April, 2000, the same has not been produced till date. 6. Learned counsel for the State has tried to defend Respondent no. 2 by contending that he joined the office only on 7.1.2000 and came to know about the present case on 24.4.2000 when he received wireless message from the office of the Advocate General. 6. Learned counsel for the State has tried to defend Respondent no. 2 by contending that he joined the office only on 7.1.2000 and came to know about the present case on 24.4.2000 when he received wireless message from the office of the Advocate General. However, he has not disputed the fact that notice was served long back on 13.8.1999 and soon thereafter all the Respondents were intimated about the present writ petition. 7. It may be true that the present Respondent no. 2 joined on 7.1.2000 and he woke up only on receipt of the wireless message on 24.4.2000, but even then he has not complied the order of this Court passed on 26.4.2000. Under the Bihar Pension Rules, it is the responsibility of the Head of the Department/ Head of the office of the concerned Government servant to act promptly in the matter of pensionary dues specially in the case of death of a Government servant in harness, but in the instant case, no action whatsoever was taken for the last almost 12 years until this Court passed the aforementioned order dated 26.4.2000. Even after the said order, Respondent no. 2 does not appear to have woken up to comply the said order and redress the grievance of the petitioner, who has already been made to suffer for almost 12 long years. This depicts most callous attitude of Respondent no. 2, so much so it is also evident from the fact that even after the said order the bill with respect to provisional family pension and provisional gratuity and leave encashment was prepared on 4.5.2000 vide Annexure-E, F & G, but Respondent no. 2 sat over them and has tried to take lame excuses that the bills could not be presented in the Bank due to strike on 11.5.2000. This only shows dilly-dally tactics of Respondent no. 2. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds it difficult to believe the defence of Respondent no. 2 that earlier the application of the petitioner was not received in his office and was not forwarded by the then Head- master of the school. 8. This only shows dilly-dally tactics of Respondent no. 2. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds it difficult to believe the defence of Respondent no. 2 that earlier the application of the petitioner was not received in his office and was not forwarded by the then Head- master of the school. 8. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding heavy penal interest and cost, out of which the penal interest should be recovered from the authority found responsible for causing delay of almost 12 years in release of the death- cum-retiral dues to the widow and the amount of cost would be recovered from Respondent no. 2. 9. In the result, the writ application is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which should be paid to the petitioner within two weeks and be recovered from Respondent no, 2. The petitioner shall also be entitled for penal interest @ 15% per annum on the entire dues, except on G.P.F. amount on which she would be entitled for uptodate statutory interest, from the due date till the payments are made. Respondent nos. 2 & 5 are accordingly directed to finalise the entire death-cum- retiral dues found payable to the petitioner within two weeks, failing which they shall not draw their salary and other allowance till the order is fully complied.