ORDER Tapan Sen, J. 1. The petitioner, in the instance case, joined the Bihar State Electricity Board and retired for services on 31.3.2001. He has made a grievance that he has not been paid the entire amount towards pension. G.P.F., unutilised leave encashment, over time allowances, gratuity. Group Insurance amount and other lawful tax and legal post retiral dues which have been illegally withheld by the respondents. The petitioner has further prayed for payment of interest with 25% p.a. on all the dues and to pay costs of litigation. He has also made a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to realise penal rent from him for occupation of Quarter No. 207. Road No. 13. P.T.P.S. Colony. Patratu, Hazaribagh which was allotted to him and in which the petitioner was living and resided till 9.2.2002, The petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the order dated 11.2.2002 (page 30 of the writ petition) by which the Estate Officer has requested the Accounts Officer to issue last pay certificate to the petitioner only after realisation of house rent in the manner indicated therein. namely rent, standard rent and penal rent. The petitioner has further made a prayer to fix his pay in the revised pay-scale as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and also to pay all arrears and/or difference of salary till the date of retirement and thereafter to fix his pension etc. arid pay 15% interest on such lawful and legal dues. 2. In this case on 14.3.2002 when this matter was taken up. the Chairman of B.S.E.B. and Chairman of J.S.E.B. appeared. The Chairman. B.S.E.B. stated that the payment to the pensioners should be made by the respective Board under whose territorial jurisdiction the employees have retired or had retired. The Chairman of the J.S.E.B. however, did not agree with the suggestion given by the Chairman of the B.S.E.B. and stated that those employees who had retired prior to the creation of the J.S.E.B.. his Board. i.e. the J.S.E.B. is not at all liable to pay the retiral dues rather the entire liability is of the B.S.E.B., although they may have lived or retired under the territorial jurisdiction of the J.S.E.B. 3. Therefore, the question that necessarily falls for consideration is as to which of the two Boards is liable to pay the post, retiral dues. i.e. the J.S.E.B. is not at all liable to pay the retiral dues rather the entire liability is of the B.S.E.B., although they may have lived or retired under the territorial jurisdiction of the J.S.E.B. 3. Therefore, the question that necessarily falls for consideration is as to which of the two Boards is liable to pay the post, retiral dues. Before I proceed to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of parties, it is necessary to bear in mind that it is now a confirmed and settled principle to hold that pension and other retiral dues are no longer a bounty distributed by the employer. On the contrary, these are valuable rights acquired and are properties in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of interest. Withholding of quarter allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of terminal benefits. This is also the position with regard to the amount laying in arrears towards Provident Fund which is immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. Reference in the aforesaid contention may be made to the case of Gorakhpur University and Ors. v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Ors.,, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2819: AIR 2001 SC 2433 : 2001 (3) JCR 240 (SC). Having noted the aforesaid principle and law laid down is such matters, it would now be necessary to advert briefly to the submissions made by Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the B.S.E.B., so as to come to the conclusion as to which of the two Boards is liable in this case to make the payments. 4. According to Mr. Jha. although the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 came into effect on and from 15.11.2000 but J.S.E.B. was created by the State of Jharkhand on 10.1.2001 vide Annexure-A appended to the counter affidavit, of the respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3. According to him the J.S.E.B. however, became actually functional on its own w.e.f. 21.3.2001. According to him. According to Mr. Jha. although the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 came into effect on and from 15.11.2000 but J.S.E.B. was created by the State of Jharkhand on 10.1.2001 vide Annexure-A appended to the counter affidavit, of the respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3. According to him the J.S.E.B. however, became actually functional on its own w.e.f. 21.3.2001. According to him. the J.S.E.B. issued a notification on 20.3.2001 by which it took under its control all assests and employees working under the territorial Jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand as the employees of the J.S.E.B. on provisional basis. The Notification No. 1 dated 20.3.2001 has been brought on record as Annexure-B/4 to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4 which has been issued by the Joint Secretary. J.S.E.B. notifying that, on and from 16.3.2001. all employees working within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand would be deemed to be the employees of the J.S.E.B. and a final decision in relation to cadre bifurcation etc. would be taken subsequently. According to Mr. Jha, therefore, the petitioner having retired on 31.3.2001. became a "deemed employee" of the J.S.E.B. on and from 16.3.2001 and. therefore, on the date of" his retirement he was an employee of the J.S.E.B. According to him. therefore, it. is the J.S.E.B. which will have to pay the entire retiral dues to the petitioner. According to him. under the provision of Section 62(1) the old Board shall continue till there was a new Board and as per Clause 62(3). the moment the new Board comes into existence, the old Board shall cease and be deemed to have been dissolved in respect of the territory where the old Board was functioning. 5. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, then argued that there was a meeting on 5.3.2001 to discuss the division of assests and liabilities in terms of the Bihar Reorganisation Act (vide Annexure-F/4 appended to counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4). According to him as per the said minutes it was decided that one of the principles to be taken note of was that the liability of the B.S.E.B. shall be divided on the basis of energy consumed in Bihar and Jharkhand in the ratio of 54 : 46 which may be confirmed from actual figures. According to him as per the said minutes it was decided that one of the principles to be taken note of was that the liability of the B.S.E.B. shall be divided on the basis of energy consumed in Bihar and Jharkhand in the ratio of 54 : 46 which may be confirmed from actual figures. According to him, they were ready to bear the liability to the extent of 54% of the total liability as was existing on 1.4.2001 because, pursuant to the aforesaid meeting, the Government of India, issued Annexure-C (Appended to the counter affidavit of the J.S.E.B.) being an order dated 22nd March. 2001 wherein while referring to the meeting held on 5.3.2001 the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 62(4)(A) of the aforesaid Bihar Re- organisation Act, 2000. definition of ratio of consumption of power to mean 54 : 46 and the assests and liabilities to be provisionally taken into consideration w.e.f. 1.4.2001. Under the heading liabilities, it was ordered that the liabilities of the Board will be apportioned between the Board of Jharkhand and Bihar in the ratio of consumption of power as agreed by the two Slates in the meeting held on 5.3.2001. However. Mr. Jha laid much stress and emphasis on Annexure-B/4 which is the Notification No. 1 dated 20.3.2001 referred to earlier by reason whereof it was inter alia notified bv the J.S.E.B. itself that on and from 16.3.2001 all employees working in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand shall be deemed to be the employees State of Jharkhand. This apart. Mr. Jha has referred to Annexures-2, 3 and 4 appended to the writ application. Annexure-2 relates to G.P.F. and it has been signed by the Deputy Director, Accounts Patratu Thermal Power Station. Hazaribagh. Similarly. Annexure-3 is an order dated 4.9.2001 and which has been signed by the General Manager of P.T.P.S.. Hazaribagh relating to further reliefs payable to the petitioner. Annexure-4 relates to sanction of D.C.R. gratuity and it has also been signed on 4.9.2001 by the General Manager. P.T.P.S. According to Mr. Jha, therefore, these are the documents which all show that it is the J.S.E.B. which is liable to pay all the retiral dues. 6. The J.S.E.B. appearing through Mrs. 1. Sen Choudhary. have stated that since the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 31.3-2001 i.e. prior to coming into existence J.S.E.B.. P.T.P.S. According to Mr. Jha, therefore, these are the documents which all show that it is the J.S.E.B. which is liable to pay all the retiral dues. 6. The J.S.E.B. appearing through Mrs. 1. Sen Choudhary. have stated that since the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 31.3-2001 i.e. prior to coming into existence J.S.E.B.. it is the B.S.E.B. which is liable to pay all retiral dues to the petitioner. At para 8 of their counter affidavit they have stated that by Notification dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure-B thereto) issued under the provision of Section 62(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act read with Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act. 1948. Chairman of the Board was appointed. However, this Notification which is contained at Annexure-B also shows that on 16.3.2001 the J.S.E.B. was constituted. 7. The learned counsel for the J.S.E.B. has further stated at para 9 that pursuant to the aforementioned notification as contained at Annexure-B. the Chairman and other members gave their joining and thus, the J.S.E.B. came into existence on and from 21.3.2001. The argument, in a nutshell of the J.S.E.B. therefore, is that J.S.E.B. came into existence on and from 21.3.2001. This further supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that J.S.E.B. is liable to pay all dues inasmuch as from the own statement of J.S.E.B. made in para 9 of their counter affidavit, the Board came into existence on and from 21.3.2001 whereas the petitioner retired after the said date i.e. on 31.3.2001. However, as per reasonings given above the petitioner should also be deemed to be an employee of J.S.E.B. on and from 16.3.2001. as has been clarified later on in this order. 8. Mr. M.M. Banerjee. learned counsel appearing for the State has stated that in order to come to a logical conclusion of this case what has to be seen is that who was the employer of the petitioner on the date of his retirement and states that as per the own statement of the B.S.E.B. made in para 5 (relevant page 4 of their counter affidavit), the J.S.E.B. became functional w.e.f. 1.4.2001. In other words, upto 31.3.2001 it was the B.S.E.B. who was the employer and therefore, B.S.E.B. will have to pay. In other words, upto 31.3.2001 it was the B.S.E.B. who was the employer and therefore, B.S.E.B. will have to pay. He has also referred to Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of the J.S.E.B. which is an office order of J.S.E.B. stating that the employees who have retired after 31.3.2001. will be paid pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and leave encashment by the J.S.E.B. on the basis of clearance obtained by the B.S.E.B. According to him. therefore, J.S.E.B. is made liable only on arid from 1.4.2001 and not prior thereto. 9. From what has been noticed above, the argument of the learned Advocate General to the effect that B.S.E.B. is liable only from 1.4.2001 and not upto 31.3.2001 cannot be accepted because of the Notification dated 20.3.2001 which is contained at Annexure-B/4 of the counter affidavit of the Bihar State electricity Board, As already stated above, this is a Notification issued by the J.S.E.B. notifying that on and from 16.3.2001 all employees serving in the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand shall be deemed to be the employees of the J.S.E.B. In addition to this, the letters as contained at Annexures-2. 3 and 4 stated above, go to show that the J.S.E.B. must beheld to be the employer after 16.3.2001 as per Annexure-B/4 referred to above. This reasoning also finds support in view of Section 62(4) which gives liberty to the respective State after the appointed date or before the dissolution of the Board to make provisions enabling the new Board to take over the assests and liabilities from the existing Board or Corporation. 10. In fact, pursuant to the minutes of the meeting held on 5.3.2001, the Government of India issued an order under Section 62 holding that the rights, assests and liabilities of the existing Board shall be provisionally w.e.f. 1.4.2001. In other words, this order refers to the matter relating to the assests, liabilities and rights which may have come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2001 but what can not be lost sight of is the Notification of the J.S.E.B. itself notifying to all concerned that on and from 16.3.2001 all employees working within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand became deemed employees of the J.S.E.B. 11. This is a case relating to post retiral dues, which as already stated earlier are no longer bounties. The right to post retiral dues accrued upon a person the day he retires. This is a case relating to post retiral dues, which as already stated earlier are no longer bounties. The right to post retiral dues accrued upon a person the day he retires. In this rase the petitioner retired on 31.3.2001 when he was a deemed employee of J.S.E.B. as per Notification referred to above. That being the position. It is the J.S.E.B. and J.S.E.B. alone which has to reimburse the petitioner and pay his post retiral dues. The provision of Section 62 or the minutes of the meeting, as has been argued by the counsels do not take away the right of an employee to receive pension nor it hampers in any manner his right to receive has pension from his employer. By Notification No. 1 as contained at "Annexure-B/4 referred to above, the J.S.E.B. create a deeming situation by reason whereof, the petitioner also became a deemed employee of the J.S.E.B. w.e.f. 16.3.2001. That being the position, the J.S.E.B. cannot say that it is not liable to pay post retiral dues. Consequently, the action of J.S.E.B. in having not paid pension to the petitioner and having forced the petitioner to go into litigation is viewed very seriously in this case. 12. Consequently. the J.S.E.B. is directed to immediately and forthwith release all retiral dues to be petitioner together with 18% interest from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. So far as payment in relation to revised scale is concerned, the petitioner will file a fresh representation before the Chairman of the J.S.E.B. who will decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 13. So far as the prayer relating to restraining the respondents from realising penal rent for occupation of the quarter in question upto 9.2.2002 is concerned, and the consequential order issued by the Estate Officer on 11.2.2002 realising penal rent, market rent and standard rent is concerned, it is to be noted that there is no dispute as the petitioner himself has stated at paragraph 20/1 that he had vacated the quarter on 10.2.2002, In other words, he over stayed in that quarter from 31.3.2001 to 10.2.2002 (i.e. a little over ten month). It is held that the respondents are entitled to charge such rent as per their own rules/guidelines. It is held that the respondents are entitled to charge such rent as per their own rules/guidelines. Additionally, there is no explanation given as to why the petitioner chose to occupy the quarter for the aforementioned period. The only explanation that has been given is at para 20 of the writ petition where he has stated that he was ready to vacate the quarter as soon as the entire lawful dues relating to post retiral benefits were paid to him since he was not in a position to shift to any rented house etc. That being the position, while directing the respondents to release post retiral dues forthwith in manner indicated above, this Court does not interfere with the order of deduction of rent but if any such deduction is made, it must be done strictly according to the prevalent rules/by-laws of the Board. 14. In view of the reasonsings given above, this writ petition is partly allowed.