ORDER The controversy in this case relates to the settlement of death-cum-retiral dues of one Banaras Prasad Singh, the deceased husband of the petitioner. He was posted as Section Officer in the Accounts Section of D.G. & I.G. (P), Bihar. He died, apparently suddenly, on 7.3.1998. At the time of death he was Incharge of the cash chest in the Accounts Section. 2. As the dues of her husband were not paid to the petitioner even after more than two years of his death, she filed this writ petition in this court in July, 2000. In the writ petition it was stated that though the amounts of leave encashment and gratuity receiveable by her husband were sanctioned, the actual payment was not made to her, on 19.7.2000 the court allowed the State counsel four weeks time to file counter affidavit. By the same order the concerned respondents were directed "to grant the sanctioned amount to the petitioner and also (to) fix family pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the order". 3. On 10.12.2001 when the case was next taken up the court was informed that the sanctioned amounts of leave encashment and gratuity were still not paid to the petitioner. An order was however, issued on 12.9.2000 for payment of provisional family pension to her @ 90%. The petitioner brought that order on record as Annexure 10 to the supplementary affidavit and sought the court's permission to challenge the action of the concerned authorities in not giving full pension to her but allowing only provisional pension @ 90%. The case was once again adjourned with a direction to the State counsel to file counter-affidavit. On 9.12.2002 the State was further allowed a week's time for filing counter affidavit stating the up-to-date payment position of the retiral dues to the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit was finally filed on 7.1.2003. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner's husband was Incharge of the cash chest of the Accounts Section and he died suddenly on 7.3.1998. After his death an inventory committee constituted by the D.G. & T.G. (P) made a physical verification of the cash book, the available money in the cash chest, and other relevant records. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner's husband was Incharge of the cash chest of the Accounts Section and he died suddenly on 7.3.1998. After his death an inventory committee constituted by the D.G. & T.G. (P) made a physical verification of the cash book, the available money in the cash chest, and other relevant records. On physical verification of the cash it was found that a very large sum of money was missing and it appeared that large amounts were given by the deceased to different officers/employees simply against plain receipts given by them. It was highly irregular and without prior permission of the concerned authorities. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the police head-quarters had requested the Home (Police) Department and the Finance Department, Bihar to depute an audit team to exactly quantify the missing amount and to consider and suggest means for its adjustment. It was also stated that the authorities had taken steps to recover from the different officers/employees the amounts advanced to them by the petitioner's husband. It was further stated that the audit was partially completed and the audit team had submitted an interim report. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that though the gratuity and encashment of earned leave were sanctioned in favour of the deceased employee, the payments under those heads as also the payment of his G.P.F. dues were being with-held awaiting final report by the audit team. 5. On 7.1.2003 the court allowed the State three months' final time to conclude the audit. 6. On 15.2.2004 another counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 from which it appears that the audit was completed and the audit report finally found a sum of Rs. 3,55,022/- missing in the hands of the deceased husband of the petitioner. A summary of the audit report is re-produced below: (A) Total outstanding balance of six cash books for which late Banaras Pd. Singh was found accountable as per audit report Rs. 34,21,876.70 (B) Less-amount in cash chest under custody of late Banaras Pd. Singh (-) Rs. 8,85,777-75 25,36,098-95 (C) Amount recouped/drawn from Treasury by the time of audit (i) Recouped from different persons in cash :- 5,40,062-05 (ii) Amount drawn from Treasury against vouchers, bills paid by Late Banaras Pd. Singh was found accountable as per audit report Rs. 34,21,876.70 (B) Less-amount in cash chest under custody of late Banaras Pd. Singh (-) Rs. 8,85,777-75 25,36,098-95 (C) Amount recouped/drawn from Treasury by the time of audit (i) Recouped from different persons in cash :- 5,40,062-05 (ii) Amount drawn from Treasury against vouchers, bills paid by Late Banaras Pd. Singh 4,98,702-85 10,38,764-90 (-) 10,3 8,764-90 14,97,334-05 (D) Pending by the time of Audit (i) For recovery in cash from different person: 5,92,875-15 (ii) For drawal from Treasury: 5,49,455-62 11,42,312-77 (-) 11,42,312-77 Rest amount adjusted against Late B.P. Singh's: 3,55,021-28 dues (leave Salary & 3,55,021-28 Pro-gratuity bill) Rounded to : 3,55,022-00 7. Rupees three lakh, fifty five thousand twenty two) only. The respondent authorities proposed to recover the missing amount of Rs.3,55,022/- from the gratuity and leave encashment amount receivable by the petitioner. 8. At this stage the payments made to petitioner during the pendency of this case may also be noted. She was paid Rs. 5,67,000.00 being the G.P.F. dues of her husband, including statutory interest upto the date of payment. She also received Rs. 98,830/- being the amount of group insurance; the amount of group insurance was paid without any interest for the delay. Her husband was earlier sanctioned Rs. 78,960/- as the amount of encashment of 240 days leave. By letter, dated 5.1.2004 the sanctioned amount was revised to Rs. 95,584/-. The amount of his gratuity was fixed at Rs. 3,50,000/- by letter, dated 3.1.2004. However, the amounts of leave encashment and gratuity (Rs. 95,584/- + Rs. 350,000/-) are still not paid to her and the respondent authorities propose to pay only Rs. 55,562/- after adjusting Rs. 3,55,022/- as per the audit report. She is getting family pension @ 90%. 9. The petitioner claims payment of full amounts of gratuity and leave encashment of her husband. She further claims interest on delayed payment of the two amounts. Apart from that she claims balance 10% of her family pension (arrears and current) plus interest on delayed payment from the due date. She further claims arrears of differential salary following the recommendations of the 5th pay revision committee. 10. Mr. Ambarnath Banerjee strongly argued in favour of full payment of gratuity and the amount of leave encashment to the petitioner and assailed the action of the respondent authorities in recovering Rs. 3,55,022/- from those amounts. She further claims arrears of differential salary following the recommendations of the 5th pay revision committee. 10. Mr. Ambarnath Banerjee strongly argued in favour of full payment of gratuity and the amount of leave encashment to the petitioner and assailed the action of the respondent authorities in recovering Rs. 3,55,022/- from those amounts. He submitted that any deduction/recovery from the retiral dues of the deceased employee could only be made in terms of rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. He pointed out that no departmental or judicial proceeding was never held against the husband of the petitioner nor a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules instituted on the basis of which an order of deduction or recovery from his retiral dues could be legally passed. He submitted that though in the counter affidavit it was stated that the inventory and physical verification of cash and the relevant registers and papers were made in presence of the petitioner and her son, that was incorrect and the petitioner in her rejoinder affidavits had denied that any verification was made in her presence or in presence of her son. He submitted that on the basis of any verification or an audit held behind the back of the petitioner, no deduction/recovery was permissible from the retiral dues of the deceased employee and in case the concerned authorities believed that there was some money missing from the cash chest, they could take recourse for its recovery under the law, that is to say by filing a suit. 11. In support of his sub miss on Mr. Banerjee relied upon two decisions of this court, one in Smt. Indu Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (1) PLJR 162 and the other in Sachchidanand Verma Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1996 (2) PLJR 421 . The two decisions, at the first instance, appear to support Mr. Banerjee's contention but on a closer scrutiny those are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. 12. In Smt. Indu Devi the deceased employee worked as proof Reader in Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad. After his death the Director of the Parishad formed a committee that prepared a list of books and periodicals during his service tenure and on that basis the value of lost books and periodicals was fixed at Rs. 1,39,282/- and that amount was sought to be recovered from his retiral dues. After his death the Director of the Parishad formed a committee that prepared a list of books and periodicals during his service tenure and on that basis the value of lost books and periodicals was fixed at Rs. 1,39,282/- and that amount was sought to be recovered from his retiral dues. To my mind the preparation of inventory of books and periodicals in an organisation and to determine the money value of the lost books and periodicals on that basis cannot be held on a par with the money missing from the cash chest directly under the charge of the employee and in my view, therefore, the decision in Smt. Indu Devi is not of any help in deciding the issue under consideration. 13. The decision in Sachchidanand Verma is still far fetched. The petitioner in that case worked as Section Officer in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forest. After his retirement an audit was held and the audit report detected embezzlement/defalcation of Rs. 98,499.01 by him. The allegedly defalcated amount was sought to be recovered from his retiral dues. This was clearly a case attracting the provision of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules inasmuch as there was plainly an allegation against the concerned employee not only of grave misconduct but of criminal nature. 14. The two cases relied upon by Mr. Banerjee, thus, seem to be of no help to him. 15. It is true that normally any deduction/recovery from the retiral dues of an employee, must firmly be based on findings regarding his responsibility for the pecuniary loss and the quantification of the loss arrived at in a departmental or judicial proceeding as provided under rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. But there may be cases, for instance, the actual handling of cash where all that is required is simply counting the money and comparing the total cash available with the figures in the cash book. In such simple and straightforward case, if certain amount is found missing, to my mind it can surely be recovered from the retiral dues of the employee without holding an enquiry under rule 43(b); after all what further may be shown in any elaborate enquiry? It would be an empty formality and a waste of time. 16. I am supported in taking the view by another decision of this court in Chandri Devi Vs. It would be an empty formality and a waste of time. 16. I am supported in taking the view by another decision of this court in Chandri Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1999 (2) PLJR 372. In that case there were two kinds of dues against the concerned employee. A sum of Rs. 25,433/- was found due against him on taking an inventory of the records in the office chamber and the residential room of the employee. There was another larger sum which the concerned authorities sought to recover as other dues from his retiral dues. This court held that the two amounts fell in different categories and while disapproving the recovery of the larger sum as the other due, it upheld the recovery of Rs. 25,433/- on the basis of the inventory of records. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment in Chandri Devi are re-produced below:- "4. On perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit and also from the documents annexed thereto it transpires that on the death of petitioner's husband a particular amount was out-standing against him as temporary advance received from the Division Office by the deceased for adjustment. The counter affidavit further shows that the locked office chambers and residential rooms of late Ram Sakal Ram were opened and an inventory of records were prepared in the presence of a Magistrate and after adjustment of all the vouchers recovered in the inventory, out of Rs.2,03,712.49 only a sum of Rs.25,433/- had been found left outstanding against Late Ram Sakal Ram. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,433.00 is thus clearly based upon official records and the said amount may be described as dues against Late Ram Sakal Ram on the basis of simple accounting. "5. However, besides the aforesaid amount a number of other amounts claimed to have been defalcated by the deceased in earlier years or amounts said to have been found due on account of deceased not handed over charge to his successor etc. are clearly claims not based on accounting but on charges which may be covered by the description of either misconduct or pecuniary loss to the Government as used in rule 43(b) of the Rules. "6. are clearly claims not based on accounting but on charges which may be covered by the description of either misconduct or pecuniary loss to the Government as used in rule 43(b) of the Rules. "6. In my view, in case of an employee suddenly dying while in employment, there may be certain dues based upon official records which can be safely described as dues arising out of simple accounting. These may cover unpaid advances taken for housing or other purposes. Such dues may be realised without resorting to procedure or rule 43(b) because rule 43(b) is applicable only to cases where a departmental or judicial proceeding is either pending or has to be initiated on account of gross misconduct or on account of causing pecuniary loss to the Government. Further, a closer scrutiny of rule 43(b) shows that it is by way of a general provision relating to grant of pension and withholding thereof when the employee has retired or superannuated from the Government service and hence it cannot fully and properly take care of situation arising on account of death of an employee. In latter case, necessary accounting has to be done to settle claims arising on account of death. While paying such claims to the family of the deceased employee, the Government will have the power to adjust whatever is found due against the deceased on proper accounting." 17. For the reasons discussed above, I am clearly of the view that the .respondent authorities are quite justified in recovering from the retiral dues of the petitioner's husband the sum of Rs. 3,55,022/- as the money missing in his hands. 18. Coming now to the petitioner's claim for interest, I find much substance in it. The husband of the petitioner died on 7.3.1998. The physical verification of cash and any auditing should not have taken more than three to four at the most six months. In this case the matter was allowed to linger on for more than six years. There is absolutely no justification for such inordinate delay as a result of which the payments that ought to have been made to the petitioner on her husband's death were offered to her after six years. I am, therefore, of the view that the concerned authorities are liable to pay a reasonable interest on delayed payments. There is absolutely no justification for such inordinate delay as a result of which the payments that ought to have been made to the petitioner on her husband's death were offered to her after six years. I am, therefore, of the view that the concerned authorities are liable to pay a reasonable interest on delayed payments. They are, therefore, directed to pay simple interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aggregate amount of gratuity and leave encashment (Rs. 3,50,000/- + 95,584/-) from 7.3.1998, the date of death of the petitioner's husband till 16.2.2004 when the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2 was filed in this court. From the amount arrived at on addition of interest, it will be open to the authorities to recover Rs. 3,55,022/- and to pay the balance to the petitioner. The payments must be made to her within one month from today. Apart from this she must be paid her full family pension and arrears of the balance 10% pension as also the differential salary of her deceased husband on the basis of the last pay revision, in accordance with rules. All due payments must be made to her within six weeks from today. 19. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.