JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following reliefs : (i) The respondents may kindly be directed to release the revised pensionary and retiral benefits to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents may further be directed to issue revised pension pay order in favour of the petitioner. (ii) The respondents may also be directed to pay interest 12% per annum on the amounts of revised pension and retiral benefits so withheld by the respondents with effect from 3.10.2000 when the decision of H.P. Police (Wireless) was communicated to respondent No. 2 by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless) H.R till it is actually paid; (iii) Respondent No. 2 may further be directed to depute a special officer to look into the matter and to conduct an enquiry for delay caused in settlement of the case of the petitioner and to initiate departmental proceedings against the erring officer. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner before this Honble Court. (v) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 2. Case set up by the petitioner is that he retired from Indo Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter referred to as the ITBP). According to him period from 17.2.1956 to 18.12.1959 was not counted towards his service. As such he took up the matter before this Court in CWP No. 573 of 1989 seeking a direction to the Director General of Police, H.P. to verify his service for this period. 3. This writ petition was disposed of on 25.7.1997. Court directed that matter pertains to the service rendered by the petitioner in Himachal Police under the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such he should have approached the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. 4. This resulted in petitioners filing O.A. No. 1667 of 1997. This was allowed on 25.7.2000. While allowing the O.A. Tribunal ordered that Director General of Police, H.P. shall treat the period of 5 months 23 days as extra-ordinary leave without pay with a further direction to treat the petitioner in continuous service from 17.2.1956 to 4.4.1966 when he was relieved to join I.T.B.P. 5. This was allowed on 25.7.2000. While allowing the O.A. Tribunal ordered that Director General of Police, H.P. shall treat the period of 5 months 23 days as extra-ordinary leave without pay with a further direction to treat the petitioner in continuous service from 17.2.1956 to 4.4.1966 when he was relieved to join I.T.B.P. 5. After decision of the O.A. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless), H.R issued orders dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure PI). Contents of Annexure PI are as under : "ORDER In pursuance of the decision of Honble Administrative Tribunal dated 25.7.2000 passed in O.A. No. 1667/97 filed by ShriM.L. Gupta versus State of H.P. and others, the interruption between the period w.e.f. 24.6.1959 to 18.12.1959 (i.e. the date of resignation from H.R Police Wireless Organisation and the date of his re-enrolment in H.R Police Wireless Organisation) is hereby treated as Extra-ordinary Leave without pay in favour of the then ASI/W.M.L. Gupta. By treating the above period as Extra-ordinary Leave, he has served continuously in H.P. Police Wireless Organisation w.e.f. 17.2.1956 to 4.4.1966 i.e. the date of his relieving from H.R Police Wireless Organisation to I.T.B.R where he was permanently absorbed and consequently retired on 31.1.1990. This order is purely based on the judgment of Honble H.R Administrative Tribunal due to non availability of any record in this office......" 6. Annexure PI was followed by Annexure P2 from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Wireless, H.R to the Director General, I.T.B.R, MHA, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, (respondent No. 2) whereby copy of judgment passed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1667 of 1997 was forwarded. 7. Petitioner represented to the Director General of ITBP vide his communication (Annexure P-3) and endorsed its copy to the Pay and Accounts Officer, ITBP, MHA Government of India, Block II, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for necessary action. When nothing was done, he again addressed a communication to the Incharge (Pensiqn Cell), Central Record Office, ITB Police, MHA (Government of India), RJC Puram, New Delhi-66 vide Annexure P4, regarding re-calculation of pension and retiral benefits. 8. It appears that vide its communication dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure P5) whereby it was required that pension/family pension, DCRG and commutation in respect of Ex. Company Commander M.L. Gupta be recalculated for the period frcm 3.3.1990 (the date of retirement) to 31.12.1995 as per calculation sheet-I. 9. 8. It appears that vide its communication dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure P5) whereby it was required that pension/family pension, DCRG and commutation in respect of Ex. Company Commander M.L. Gupta be recalculated for the period frcm 3.3.1990 (the date of retirement) to 31.12.1995 as per calculation sheet-I. 9. Again when nothing was done by the Pay and Accounts Officer, petitioner again issued a reminder vide Annexure P6 with reference to the aforesaid communication dated 1.3.2001 to the Pay and Accounts Officer, I.T.B.R, MHA/Govt. of India, New Delhi, with copy to Central Record Office, I.T.B.R, Police, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It was because of inaction on the part of respondents No. 1 to 3, as a last resort present writ petition was filed on 31.10.2001. 10. Respondents 1 to 3 when put to notice filed their reply on 9.3.2002. Annexure Rl was also filed with it. 11. Annexure Rl is a communication dated 13.12.2001 from the Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Its copy was endorsed to the petitioner as well as Senior Accounts Officer (R) CRO ITBP 2, CGO Complex, New Delhi-3 with reference to letter dated 28-ll-(illegible) and the Commandant Tele Bn. I.T.B.P., M.H.A. 12. When the matter came up before this Court on 26.6.2002 following order was passed : "It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that communication has been addressed while forwarding Annexure R-l to the Punjab National Bank at its The Mall, Shimla Branch. The communication dated 17.1.2002 has also been addressed by the competent authority for release of revised pension in favour of the petitioner. So far as the calculations of revised pension is concerned, there was no dispute amongst the parties. It has been stated on behalf of the parties today that arrears are to be calculated by the Drawing and Disbursing Bank, i.e., Punjab National Bank at its The Mall, Shimla Branch. In view of the aforesaid, it is ordered that let Punjab National Bank through its Regional Manager at its Regional Office, Regent House, the Mall, Shimla, be added as respondent No. 4 at the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the Punjab National Bank through its Regional Manager at its Regional Office, Regent House, The Mall, Shimla, is added as respondent No. 4. Cause title be corrected accordingly. Accordingly, the Punjab National Bank through its Regional Manager at its Regional Office, Regent House, The Mall, Shimla, is added as respondent No. 4. Cause title be corrected accordingly. Notice be issued to newly added respondent returnable for July 15, 2002. Notice be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner for getting the newly added respondent served for the said date. While issuing notice a complete set of paper book together with the reply of the respondents will be sent, while filing reply, the Bank will give reasons as to why revised pension has not been calculated in view of the aforesaid communication dated 17.1.2002 till date. While issuing notice, an authenticated copy of this order will also be attached with the papers for being served upon the newly added respondent for the said date." 13. On 15.7.2002 appearance was put up on behalf of newly added respondent No. 4 Bank. When matter came up on 16.7.2002 reply was filed by Mr. J.L. Kashyap, Advocate. Stand of the bank is that revised pension has been credited to the saving bank account of petitioner wherein his pension was also being credited. According to him communication dated 17.1.2002 with the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3, was received in the Bank by the end of January, 2002. Thereafter petitioner himself visited the Bank at its The Mall Shimla Branch, and requested the Bank not to calculate arrears of pension, because he (petitioner) had taken up the matter with the department 10 credit the aforesaid anomalies and stated that writ petition is pending in the High Court. This was done vide Annexure RX copy of letter dated 25.2.2002 attached with its reply by the Bank. Alongwith Annexure RX petitioner had attached a calculation sheet as worked out by him and had been addressed to Pay and Accounts Officer, ITBP Police on the subject of release of his pension. For ready reference contents of Annexure RX are extracted hereinbelow: "Subject : Revision of pension of M.L. Gupta, PPO No. 231849100323/ 374936/A-2. Kindly refer to the letter No. 3000088 dated 17.1.2002 from Central Pension Accounting Officer Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi on the subject cited above. Since you have been authorised by the above office (Pension Paying Authority) to draw arrears of pension as a result of revision of pension from 3.3.90 to onwards. Kindly refer to the letter No. 3000088 dated 17.1.2002 from Central Pension Accounting Officer Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi on the subject cited above. Since you have been authorised by the above office (Pension Paying Authority) to draw arrears of pension as a result of revision of pension from 3.3.90 to onwards. In this respect, I have also drawn a simple calculation for the amount due to me as a calculation for the amount due to me as a result of revision the copy of which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and quickness. This letter of mine was sent to Pay and Accounts Officer for drawing due and drawn statement which is now to be prepared and calculated by you, hence the calculation for the due calculated by me may help your office for the cross check. This revision of pension is according to the pending writ petition in the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. I except that the due amount may be calculated with due care in order to avoid further litigation in the matter. I am enclosing herewith my PPO book for making necessary entries of the arrears drawn from 3.3.90 to onwards." 14. We may also notice that in the margin of RX (supra) it is mentioned "Sh. Gupta told not to pay the amount as his writ petition is going in the Court". Who made this endorsement and when? There is nothing on record. Besides this there does not appear to be any justifiable cause for petitioner having asked the Branch Manager not to pay/calculate the amount of his revised pension and thereafter debit the same in his pension account. 15. In case stand of the respondent Bank is correct, then as a prudent banker it would have insisted upon the petitioner to withdraw what is written in Annexure RX as extracted hereinabove. What is date of this endorsement nothing can be spelt out. How this communication was dealt with in the respondent Bank there is no material placed on record nor produced at the time of hearing. Therefore we have no option but to ignore this endorsement made on behalf of respondent No. 4 Bank. 16. We may notice the submission of Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Bank. How this communication was dealt with in the respondent Bank there is no material placed on record nor produced at the time of hearing. Therefore we have no option but to ignore this endorsement made on behalf of respondent No. 4 Bank. 16. We may notice the submission of Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Bank. According to him Bank with a view to accept the word of the petitioner bona fide believed, and did not credit the amount after receipt of Annexure Rl (with the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3 in the end of January, 2002) in view of RX supra. According to him this is not an intentional act which needs to be viewed seriously by this Court. Thus he has prayed for dismissal of writ petition against his client. 17. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He urged that this is a case of gross highhandedness on the part of the respondent No. 4 bank. He further pointed out that at no point of time his client has ever asked the bank not to pay/credit the amount of difference of pension in terms of Annexure R-l supra to the saving bank account of his client. According to him the endorsement on Annexure RX is a creation of the Bank to give a cover to the from the end of January till 3rd July, 2002 when amount of difference was calculated and as mentioned by the respondent bank that, the same has been credited to the account of the petitioner. In case what was argued by Mr. Kashyap is accepted to be correct, then why and at whose instance, the amount was credited to the pension account of the petitioner could not be explained by the learned counsel. As already noted notice in this case was served on the bank on its Regional Manager on 2.7.2002 and immediately on the very next date the amount stands credited. 18. In these circumstances, we feel that the petitioner was deprived of the interest on the amount of that was credited on 3.7.2002 for the period 1.2.2002 to 2.7.2002. Accordingly, it is ordered that the bank shall calculate and pay interest to the petitioner at the rate that is payable on saving bank account. 18. In these circumstances, we feel that the petitioner was deprived of the interest on the amount of that was credited on 3.7.2002 for the period 1.2.2002 to 2.7.2002. Accordingly, it is ordered that the bank shall calculate and pay interest to the petitioner at the rate that is payable on saving bank account. Needful will be done within two weeks of the passing of this judgment and affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of Respondent No. 4 Bank at its Shimla Branch, reporting compliance with this part of the order. 19. So far respondents No. 1 to 3 are concerned they also cannot shun their responsibility for payment of interest. Reason being that after decision of the O.A. proper and timely action was taken by the Deputy Inspector General Police, Wireless H.P. Shimla-2, by firstly passing the office order on 28.9.2000 and thereafter by forwarding a copy of the judgment of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to the Director General of I.T.B.P. 20. In the ordinary course of things respondents No. 1 to 3 ought to have taken action within reasonable time. When nothing was done, petitioner was forced to write a letter Annexure P3 to the Director General of ITBP. It appears that a communication was also addressed by the Incharge Pension Cell as referred to in Annexure P4. It is dated 21.1.2001. 21. Thereafter Central Record Office ITBP directed Pay and Accounts Office to do needful. Record further suggests that when nothing was done petitioner was forced to send a reminder vide Annexure P6 on 5.7.2002. 22. In this behalf we may also notice that so far averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner particularly with respect to Annexures PI to P5 are concerned, these are in paras 7, 8, 9 and 10 of writ petition. Reply to these paras and documents attached with it i.e. Annexures Rl and R-II by respondents No. 1 to 3 clearly support petitioners case on delay 23. Paragraph 6 of the reply makes an interesting reading. While admitting, that the case of revision of pension of the petitioner was received in March, 2002. It is pleaded that original case file was needed to process his case which could not be traced. Thus after carrying out a special drive to trace the case at Tigri and CGO Complex, the file was found and scrutinised. Thereafter Annexure R1 was issued. It is pleaded that original case file was needed to process his case which could not be traced. Thus after carrying out a special drive to trace the case at Tigri and CGO Complex, the file was found and scrutinised. Thereafter Annexure R1 was issued. This document was received by respondent No. 4 bank in the end of January, 2002 as per the stand of the said respondent (i.e. No. 4). 24. For no fault of the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 3 delayed revision of pension and payment of arrears to him. We may observe there that it is the duty of respondents No. 1 to 3 to keep its records at the right place as the custodians of such records. Cause of misplacement/ non availability of record cannot be allowed to be^ pleaded as a ground for non grant of revised pensionary benefits in terms of the judgment as noted hereinabove. 25. Thus the defence set up in paragraph 6 of its reply cannot be accepted as a ground to sustain the delay in settlement of the case of the petitioner. 26. Here we may also observe that Annexure R1 is dated 21.12.2001. There is nothing mentioned in it as to its having been endorsed to the PNB the Mall Shimla. As per stand of the respondent Bank it was received along with letter issued by Central Pension Accounting Office, which was received in the end of January, 2002. Thus till 17.1.2002, respondents No. 1 to 3 are liable for payment of interest on the total amount of arrears. 27. Now the question remains as to at what rate this interest is to be calculated. After decision of the O.A. by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and issuance of order dated 28.9.2000 by Dy. Inspector General of Police Wireless Shimla-2, and said officer having also forwarded a copy of judgment to the Director General ITBP on 3.10.2001, respondent No. 2 was expected to act and take further action within reasonable time. Nothing was promptly done despite petitioners sending reminders till the date of filing of the writ petition. 28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we must accept the plea of Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that had his client not approached the Court, probably the things may not have been straightened even now. Nothing was promptly done despite petitioners sending reminders till the date of filing of the writ petition. 28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we must accept the plea of Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that had his client not approached the Court, probably the things may not have been straightened even now. According to him it was only thereafter that these respondents took further action and issued Annexure Rl even then it was not forwarded to the concerned Bank i.e. respondent No. 4 at its The Mall, Shimla Branch authorising it to proceed further by crediting the amount to the pension bank account of the petitioner. As such we feel that interest of justice will be well served if respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to calculate interest on the difference between revised pension and that was actually paid before its revision and remit the same to the petitioner for the period from 1.1.2001 to 17.1.2002 at the rate of 9% simple. 29. We may notice that Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 9 SCC 687, and submitted that interest needs to be allowed at the rate of 18%p.a. In the alternative as well as without conceding he urged that in no case it be granted below 12% p.a. For claiming interest at this rate, he placed reliance on the decision of Dharamvir Narang v. State of Punjab, 1999 (2) SCT 428 (P&H). 30. We would have considered allowing interest against respondents No. 1 to 3 at a higher rate but we are purposely not doing so. Reason being that interest on securities by nationalised banks, as well as lending rate both have been reduced during the last two years. Thus keeping in view this fact, we have allowed interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the period detailed hereinabove. 31. No other point is urged. 32. Let respondents work out the amount of interest as aforesaid on the difference of outstanding amount and remit/debit the same to the pension account of the petitioner by or before 31.8.2002. Respondent No. 2 will also file affidavit to that effect, reporting compliance like respondent No. 4 as ordered in the preceding paras. 33. No other point is urged. 32. Let respondents work out the amount of interest as aforesaid on the difference of outstanding amount and remit/debit the same to the pension account of the petitioner by or before 31.8.2002. Respondent No. 2 will also file affidavit to that effect, reporting compliance like respondent No. 4 as ordered in the preceding paras. 33. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms after it was formally admitted and finally heard as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the parties looking to the controversy involved in it. No costs. W.P. allowed.