Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. As in ail these writ petitions, the question involved is common, with consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Admittedly, all the petitioners of the above-mentioned writ petitions superannuated from service before the appointed day under Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 while they were working in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar. Their retirement is in between 1991 and June, 2000. Some of the petitioners are getting provisional pension only and some have been kept denied even of provisional pension till date. Accordingly, they have filed the present writ application seeking appropriate direction to the Respondents to pay their dues including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc. 3. The stand of the State of Bihar and its officials in the counter-affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 11379 of 2000 initially was that the liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of pension and other retirement benefits shall be passed to or be appointed between the successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions contained in Eighth Schedule and that the payments of such dues are to be made from the State of Jharkhand and adjustment is to be made between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand at the end of the financial year as per paragraph 4 of the Eighth Schedule of Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. However, from the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on their behalf, it appears that their stand is that in those cases, where the sanctioning authority with respect to pension falls within the area of State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar cannot make payment unless the sanctioning authority issues sanction order for such payment in accordance with rules and in the case of such Government servant whose pension, etc. is sanctioned by the Secretariat/Directorate/Headquarters located at Patna, the sanction will be given from the Headquarters at Patna, even when the Government Servant concerned has retired from areas now forming part of the State of Jharkhand. Their further case is that after creation of new State of Jharkhand with effect from 15-11-2000, the sanctioning authority posted in the area of Jharkhand State comes under the jurisdiction and control of the new State of Jharkhand and the present State of Bihar has no administrative control over the said functionary. 4. Their further case is that after creation of new State of Jharkhand with effect from 15-11-2000, the sanctioning authority posted in the area of Jharkhand State comes under the jurisdiction and control of the new State of Jharkhand and the present State of Bihar has no administrative control over the said functionary. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that liability in respect of pension and other retirement benefit of such Government servant of the State of Bihar, who retired prior to the appointed day is of the State of Bihar. In this regard, provisions contained in Sec. 53 and paragraph 2 of the Eighth Schedule of Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which read as follows: 53. Pensions-The liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits shall pass to, or be apportioned between the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to this Act. 2. Subject to the said adjustment, the liability in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits of officers serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar who retire or proceed on leave preparatory to retirement before the appointed day, but whose claims for pensions and other retirement benefits are outstanding immediately before that day, shall be the liability of the State of Bihar. 5. In view of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, learned State Counsel appearing for them, on the other hand, has admitted that the liability with respect to outstanding pension and other retirement benefits of those Government servant who retired immediately before the appointed day is of the State of Bihar subject to adjustments, sanction of such pension and other retirement benefits by the competent authority. It is submitted by him that in the case of such Government servant whose sanctioning authority is in the Secretariat/Directorate/Headquarters located at Patna, the sanction is required to be given from the Headquarters at Patna even when the Government servant concerned has retired from the areas now forming part of the State of Jharkhand but in the case where the sanctioning authority is the authority who is presently posted within the territory of Jharkhand State, the sanction has to be made by them and only thereafter the liability to pay can be discharged by the State of Bihar. He further submitted that such sanctioning authority who are presently posted in the territory of Jharkhand State are beyond the administrative control of the State of Bihar, except in disciplinary matters and as such the State of Bihar can take any initiative only after the sanction is accorded by such sanctioning authority. 6. According to learned Standing Counsel from reading of the provisions, contained in Secs. 72 and 74 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, it would appear that the present State of Bihar has no administrative control over the officers or authorities presently discharging their duties in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. The only administrative control of the present State of Bihar over such officers is with respect to taking of disciplinary action against them and does not have control over them in other matters. 7. It is useful to quote Secs. 72 and 74 of the Act hereunder: 72. Provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand- (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand: Period of one year from the appointed day. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-sec. (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-sec. (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. 74. Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post.-Every person who immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in, that successor State: Provided that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. 8. Under Sec. 74 of the Act, every person who immediately before the appointed day was holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day fell within any of the successor States are to continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and are deemed to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority, in that successor State on and from that day and under its proviso, it is made clear that nothing in the said provision shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. But, Sec. 72 of the Act provides that every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. Proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 72 further makes it clear that no direction is to be issued under the said Section after the expiry of the period of one year from the appointed day. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 72 provides that as soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-sec. (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect and under Sub-section (3) every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to a successor Slate shall, if he is not already serving therein, be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. 9. Admittedly, the occasion for application of the provisions contained in subsections (2) and (3) of Sec. 72 has not arisen so far, as there has been no final allocation of service to the successor States. It has further been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the present State of Bihar that no general or special order has been issued by the Central Government so far requiring any person to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission that the State of Bihar will have no administrative control over the persons who immediately before the appointed day were serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar but now by virtue of the provision contained in Sec. 74 are presently holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of State of Jharkhand. In fact, the provisions contained in Secs. In fact, the provisions contained in Secs. 72 & 74 are transitory in nature and on harmonious construction of the said two provisions, it is clear that by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 72, every person serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar as it then existed immediately before the appointed day is to provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar on and from that day unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand, and under Sec. 74 every person who immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States though are to continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and they are deemed to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government or any other competent authority in, that successor State from that day but under its proviso, the competent authority can only pass any order affecting continuance of such person in such post or office on and from the appointed day, and affect his transfer and posting within their own area. However, power of over all administrative control of the State of Bihar over those persons covered by the first part of Sec. 72 is protected except that no order can be passed affecting continuance in respect of such persons who fall and are serving in connection with the affairs of the successor State on the appointed day. In respect of even such person, transfer can be affected to equivalent post only by that successor State. This arrangement is to continue subject to the general or special order of Central Government either in terms of second part of Sub-sec. or under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 72 of the Act. 10. Sec. 53 of the Act provides that the liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits shall pass to or be apportioned between, the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to the Act. 10. Sec. 53 of the Act provides that the liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits shall pass to or be apportioned between, the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to the Act. Paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule provides that subject to the adjustments mentioned in paragraph 3, each of the successor State shall in respect of pension and other retirement benefits sanctioned before the appointed date, pay from their respective treasuries. However, as per the provisions contained in paragraph 2, the liability in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits of officers serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar who retired or proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement before the appointed day, but whose claims for pensions and other retirement benefits are outstanding immediately before that day, is of the State of Bihar, as has also been admitted by the Respondent No. 1 in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioners have rightly contended that the liability to pay the dues in the present cases is of the State of Bihar and once the liability to pay the due- the petitioners of the present cases is of the State of Bihar then the State of Bihar, in my opinion, cannot escape from the responsibility to take all necessary steps including to get the necessary sanction made by the competent authority even though they may be presently posted in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. They cannot be exempted from such liability on such lame excuse that the sanctioning authority has not issued sanction orders. They cannot be exempted from such liability on such lame excuse that the sanctioning authority has not issued sanction orders. Government circular No. 3014 dated 31st July, 1980 mandates that the entire gratuity is to be released within six months of the retirement and as per Government instruction contained in Memo No. Pen-1032/67-8739F dated 13-7-1967 dealing with simplification of Bihar Pension Rules and Procedure for grant of pension even filing of formal application has been dispensed with and now it is the responsibility of the Head of Office in case of non-gazetted Government servants to draw up immediately after the retirement of Government servant an application in Form 4 of Bihar Pension Rules and submit to the Accountant General, Bihar with all necessary papers and in case of Gazetted Government servant, it is the responsibility of the Head of the Department to see that the action under the said provision is completed within the stipulated period after getting necessary formalities completed. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to show that the concerned Head of the Office/Department has taken any such step to get the necessary sanction order for payment of the dues of the petitioners or that despite taking any step the sanctioning authority presently posted in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand has declined and if declined then what action was taken against them. 11. It is really shocking that despite taking strong exceptions by this Court in many cases where the State authorities failed to discharge its liability of paying pensionary dues of the Pensioner, the Respondent authorities of the State of Bihar have not bothered to discharge their duty and have kept these petitioners deprived of the dues for many long years, such as, in the case of C.W.J.C. No. 12833 of 2000, it is now almost 10 years that he has been kept deprived of his pensionary dues. This only reflects callousness on the part of the State authorities in discharging their duties despite there being specific provision for its discharge sufficiently before retirement in case a formal application is made by the Government servant and even in case no such application is made then by getting the necessary Form 4 filled up and transmitted to the Accountant-General with all necessary papers. In any view of the matter, the respondents have failed to show that they discharged their duty to pay the due amount of gratuity within six months as stipulated in the abovementioned Government circular No. 3014 dated 31-7-1980. This Court strongly deprecates such inaction on the part of the authority concerned. 12. In my opinion, petitioners in the facts and circumstances are entitled for payment of penal interest on delayed payment of pensionary dues except over the item which carries statutory interest as there is no, nor there can be any explanation for not discharging the liability/responsibility to pay the same within the time stiputed in the Government circulars. Besides this, they are also entitled for costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000.00 to be paid by the State of Bihar to each petitioner. The Head of the Department in all the writ petitions are directed to immediately take all necessary steps and if necessary take appropriate action against the erring official for release of the entire post-retiral dues of the petitioners and necessary-sanction orders must be issued within two months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, petitioners will be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on account of delayed payment of pensionary dues except on those which carry statutory interest and necessary sanction order must be issued within the aforesaid time. The cost of Rs. 1,000 to each of the petitioner shall also be paid as directed above within the aforesaid time.