Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This is a very small matter which should not have embroiled a petty employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short the Board), in so much litigation. The appellant by rank is a Switch Board Operator (a Class III Post), who had not received his entire post retirement benefits immediately. The whole issue has arisen on the aspect that provident fund was not paid forthwith after retirement. The petitioner came to the High Court earlier by a writ petition (CWJC No. 5812 of 2002). The issue and the claim was of interest on delayed payment of the general provident fund between 1993 to 1996. The High Court ordered that the matter be scrutinised to examine the petitioners entitlement to interest for delayed payment. The order of the High Court is dated 4.6.2002. It took the Board six months to hear the petitioner. What was required to be seen was that if the fault did not lie with the petitioner then the statutory interest was to be made available to him. The statutory interest is indicated as 9.5% in pursuance of Rule 31.The rule incidentally was framed in 1948; these are State Rules adopted by the Board in dealing with the affairs of post retirement benefits and pensions. 2. A communication addressed to the petitioner-appellant letter no. 2873 dated 25 August, 1995 refers the letter of the Deputy Director Accounts no. 5924 dated 19 August, 1994. Even the inter departmental steps took one year to act upon. The letter dated 25 August, 1995 addressed to the petitioner places on record that his application for withdrawal of the balance payment cannot be located in the office. The indication was not that he had not applied. But that the application of the petitioner had been misplaced and could not be located. Now what should have been done before was attempted to be done later. The petitioner was being forwarded three copies of an application and was being advised to fill up so that his claim could be processed. Clearly, if the Board could forward three copies of the application by acknowledging that the earlier one had been misplaced a lot of unpleasantness being faced by the petitioner would have been saved. 3. The petitioners claim to examine the payment of interest was negatived by the Bihar State Electricity Board despite the order of the High Court. Clearly, if the Board could forward three copies of the application by acknowledging that the earlier one had been misplaced a lot of unpleasantness being faced by the petitioner would have been saved. 3. The petitioners claim to examine the payment of interest was negatived by the Bihar State Electricity Board despite the order of the High Court. The petitioner filed another writ petition (CWJC No. 7337 of 2002); it was dismissed.Thus, the present Letters Patent Appeal arises. The writ petition was dismissed. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the Board that the petitioner was himself to blame for late payment of the provident fund. 4. The entire record was being misinterpreted at the Board by the time the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineering was hearing the petitioner to comply with the orders of the High Court on the earlier petition. it was being reflected that the application for final withdrawal of provident fund submitted by the petitioner was "not on a prescribed format." The other record of 7 years earlier tells the petitioner that his application cannot be located. Is this the same application which was not on the prescribed format? Because the subsequent three formats had been given by the Board itself. 5. In so far as the Board is concerned all this boils down to a very petty exercise as if to cover up past situations to absolve and protect the establishment from any allegation of delay. Clearly, between the two records the error is manifest that it borders on perversity between a missing application and an application not on a prescribed format. The situation is not compatible nor congenial for a retired employee. 6. Clearly, there was no fault of the employee as he was being blamed that he had delayed the processing of his post retirement benefits or for that matter the balance amount of his provident fund. Record for record the issue always remained that the balance monies representing post retirement benefits had yet to be delivered to the petitioner. 7. In this regard, let all public authorities be reminded of the judgment of the Supreme Court given 17 years ago in re. State of Kerala and others V/s. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 S.C. 356 . The dictum of the judgment is basically two fold. Firstly, a lesser interest granted by the High Court was increased by the Supreme Court. In this regard, let all public authorities be reminded of the judgment of the Supreme Court given 17 years ago in re. State of Kerala and others V/s. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 S.C. 356 . The dictum of the judgment is basically two fold. Firstly, a lesser interest granted by the High Court was increased by the Supreme Court. Secondly, the Supreme Court had advised, in effect, by a direction that much before an incumbent retires, public bodies should be seen to be processing the retirement papers. The Supreme Court was virtually suggesting one window service to deliver post retirement benefits to retiring employees without their chasing payments due to them. A harassment which is becoming the order of the day, in Bihar. 8. The court is concerned that so many dockets are pending at the High Court concerning non-payment of pensions and post retirement benefits. The media has embarrassed the State of Bihar and its Public Sector Undertakings and now one PlL has been filed at the Supreme Court highlighting the issue that the State of Bihar is not paying salary and pensions to its employees either retired or in service. The question of paying them delayed is entirely another matter. 9. Thus, it is a matter of serious consideration that within the Board, Government Companies, Statutory Bodies or the departments of the State of Bihar, the entire psyche towards payment of post retirement benefits to retired employees must see a change. Three months before an employee retires, his or her papers must be processed. An employee ought to receive the post retirement benefits papers immediately, on the day of retirement and the benefits a month next to retirement. Situations like the present one would then be avoided. The State of Bihar and its corporations could save embarrassing situations by persons being driven to the edge and presenting incidents of self immolation or suicide. It gives a bad name to the State Government; nothing to be proud about. These situations reflect on the proverbial red tape and the power of the Babu. 10. In the present case, let whatever is due to the present employee be delivered to him with statutory interest which has been indicated by Counsel for the Board. It gives a bad name to the State Government; nothing to be proud about. These situations reflect on the proverbial red tape and the power of the Babu. 10. In the present case, let whatever is due to the present employee be delivered to him with statutory interest which has been indicated by Counsel for the Board. In so far as the judgment of the learned Judge on the writ petition is concerned, it does not notice the manifest error.apparent on the face of this record that the papers were mislaid by the Board, a fact acknowledged on record. It is, thus, set aside. 11. The appeal is allowed with costs.