ORDER : These writ applications have been listed together on the slips of learned counsel for the respective petitioners in response to a Court notice inviting them to file slips of writ applications filed up to 2007 in which no counter affidavit has been filed by the respective heads of office/sanctioning authorities. 2. In all these writ applications, the claims of the petitioners are for payment of retiral dues of the retired employees or death-cum-retirement dues of the employees who have died-in-harness or after retirement, either before filing of the writ application or during its pendency including arrears of gratuity as per the rate prescribed, provident fund with statutory interest, as also dues under other heads. In some cases, claim has been raised with regard to arrears of salary, not paid during the service period of the concerned Government employee or arrears under different heads on account of revision of pay-scale of the employee or promotion granted to them with retrospective effect at different points or for grant of revised pay-scale due at the relevant point of time during service period as per the law applicable at the time and consequential revision under other heads of post retiral dues and payments of differential amount on this count, so on and so forth. 3. In spite of filing of these writ applications months and years back, no counter affidavits have been filed in these writ applications by the respective heads of offices/sanctioning authorities denying the claims of the petitioners with regard to the dues under different heads mentioned in the writ application, or raising any objection with regard to any specific claim so raised or non-furnishing of particulars/information’s in spite of written request in this regard. As per Rules of Patna High Court, at the time of filing of the writ application, two copies of the writ application are served on the learned counsel for the respondents, who are authorized to receive copies and appear on behalf of the respondents named in the respective writ applications. As per Rules of Patna High Court, at the time of filing of the writ application, two copies of the writ application are served on the learned counsel for the respondents, who are authorized to receive copies and appear on behalf of the respondents named in the respective writ applications. This requirement was introduced in the procedure for filing of writ applications in the High Court to ensure that the respondents get the notice/information of filing of the writ application, with its filing, (as it was made a condition precedent for acceptance of filing by the High Court registry) and they act on it by filing appropriate counter affidavit in the respective writ matters, without waiting for the case to be taken up in due course, which, at times, happened after months or, may be, years. Accordingly, all the writ applications of the present batch were filed in the High Court Registry after service of two copies of the application on the respective counsel for the respondents. It is a uniform practice of this Court that, in normal course, the respective counsel, immediately after receipt of two copies of the writ application, send letter to the concerned respondents, alongwith one copy of the writ application, for their information and for them to take appropriate steps in the matter of claims of the petitioner(s) and file a counter affidavit at the earliest. 4. In the circumstances, in all these writ applications, in absence of any claim to the contrary, it can be safely presumed that, with the filing of the respective writ applications, the respective respondents came to know about it and received a copy of the writ application also. However, in spite of getting knowledge of the filing of the respective writ applications, and in spite of receiving a copy of the same, no counter affidavits have been filed in the respective cases by them. In some cases, counter affidavits have been filed by the office of the Accountant General, evidencing issue of authority slips in respect of some of the claims of the respective employee, as raised in the respective writ application. This further strengthens the point that the claims raised in the respective writ applications, or some of them, at least, are genuine, which remain uncontroverted and undisputed by the respondents, particularly the concerned head of the office and/or sanctioning authorities. 5. This further strengthens the point that the claims raised in the respective writ applications, or some of them, at least, are genuine, which remain uncontroverted and undisputed by the respondents, particularly the concerned head of the office and/or sanctioning authorities. 5. These writ applications have been sorted out and have been listed together in a batch, as the employees whose claims have been agitated in the respective writ applications were all in the service of the State of Bihar and/or its subordinate offices and have retired from or have died while in Government service. As such, in all the writ applications, the State of Bihar is a common party with its different officers and subordinate authorities, depending upon the office where the employee had last worked at the relevant time. In the circumstances, the Rules governing the pecuniary benefits of the State Government employees, and particularly Bihar Pension Rules in respect of retiral claims, shall be applicable in all cases. Therefore, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate that some of the relevant provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and executive instructions issued therein are noticed here. 6. Starting from Rule 132, it provides that the case of a Government servant should be taken up when he is approaching the age of superannuation. But, it appears that, soon after the framing of the Rules. the authorities became conscious of delays in disposal of pension cases due to incorrect and/or incomplete submission of pension cases to the Accountant General, and therefore, vide Memo No. 1562-F dated Patna, the 5th December, 1953, to minimize delay, a questionnaire in consultation of with Accountant General, was framed and prescribed, which was instructed to be brought to the knowledge of the sanctioning authorities for the purposes of forwarding the pensions cases with all necessary information and enclosures to the Accountant General. However, the malady continued and, therefore, in reference to the said memo of 1953, another memo was issued, vide Memo No. Pen-1049/59/Pl.323434 F., dated 8.12.1959, pointing out the common defects in submitting necessary information in the prescribed questionnaire, requesting the sanctioning authorities to pay more attention to the items enumerated in the said questionnaire while filling them up. It was stressed that in cases of objections referred by the Accountant General, the same should be returned very quickly after compliance. It was stressed that in cases of objections referred by the Accountant General, the same should be returned very quickly after compliance. These instructions were also directed to be brought to the notice of subordinate officers to avoid delay in disposal of pension cases. To further simplify the procedure for pension, and to stop the continuing recurrence of defective submission of pension papers by the administrative departments of the concerned employees, another memo was issued by the State Government, in consultation with the Accountant General, vide Memo No. Pen-1024/69/5060F, dated 6.1.1969, with a model forwarding letter, to be sent, with all enclosures and information’s as mentioned therein. During the scrutiny of pending pension cases, it was also discovered that, at times, employees are allowed to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation, resulting into payment to them from public exchequer, which was illegal. Therefore, another memo was issued, vide F.D. Memo. No. P.C.-2-20-78-5749 F. dated 14.4.1978, in which it was noticed that this lapse occasioned because pension sanctioning authority/head of the office do not prepare advance list of employees retiring in the next 18 months and that they do not comply with the Government Rules and instructions, issued time to time, in correct manner. It was also noticed that entire responsibility of preparing pension papers of a non-gazetted Government servant, and that of sanction of provisional pension was on the head of office. Therefore, responsibility for preparation of list of retiring employees in the next 18 months was also of the same head of office. In respect of gazetted employees, it was noticed that the responsibility of preparing pension papers lies with the Accountant General and therefore he should send the list of employees retiring in the next 18 months to the pension sanctioning authorities, who should also be vigilant about it at their own level. A warning was issued therein that in case such illegal continuance comes to the notice of the Government, appropriate disciplinary proceeding shall be initiated against the concerned officer and steps will be taken to realize from him the illegal payments made in the matter. 7. Another Rule which requires notice is Rule 188. It will be useful to quote the said Rule herein itself:- "188. All authorities dealing with applications for pension under these rules should bear in mind that delay in the payment of pensions involves pecuniary hardship. 7. Another Rule which requires notice is Rule 188. It will be useful to quote the said Rule herein itself:- "188. All authorities dealing with applications for pension under these rules should bear in mind that delay in the payment of pensions involves pecuniary hardship. It is essential to ensure therefore, that a Government servant begins to receive his pension on the date on which it becomes due." 8. At this stage, to be fare to the respondents, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Rules 189, 193 and 196. These Rules require a Government servant to submit a formal application for pension. Rule 189, which in general terms, requires from a Government servant to submit a formal application for pension, in his own interest, 18 months in advance, to the authority specified in Rule 193 or 196. Rules 193 to 195 deal with application by a gazetted Government servant and the procedure for processing of his pension claim, once application has been received by the head of the department, or provincial Government if the employee is himself head of the department. Rules 196 to 199 deal with an application by a non-gazetted Government servant and procedure for processing his claim by the head of the office. In this context it is noticed that subsequently a memo no. Pen-1032/67-8739F, dated 13.7.1967 was issued whereby requirement of submission of formal application was given a go by, which, however, has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal Singh vs. State [( 2007(3) PLJR 38 ] as not having an overriding effect on the above provisions of Rules. 9. But reading Rules 189, 193 and 196 conjointly with the other provisions of the Pension Rules and instructions/memos issued from time to time, it will be apparent that these provisions were never meant to put a spanner in the scheme of the Pension Rules. The provisions for formal application were clearly meant to make the Government servant conscious of his date of retirement and make him ready for final settlement and payment of his retiral benefits and to bid adieu to his employer. The provisions for formal application were clearly meant to make the Government servant conscious of his date of retirement and make him ready for final settlement and payment of his retiral benefits and to bid adieu to his employer. It will, indeed, be preposterous to assume that these three provisions give authority to head of the office/sanctioning authority to sit immobile till a formal application is received from a retiring employee (and from an employee died-in-harness?), completely negating the letter and spirit of provisions of Pension Rules and several instructions issued from time to time. But leaving the analysis for a better occasion when dispute arises, suffice will be to remind oneself of requirement of preparation of advance list of retiring employees in the next 18 months by the head of office/sanctioning authority, of sending of one copy of Rules 189 to 193 by the Accountant General to the retiring gazetted employee 18 months in advance as laid down in Rule 190 and repeated reminders and instructions to the head of office/ sanctioning authority to send pension papers, duly completed, well in time for sanction of pension at least 15 days prior to retirement of the employee, making them personally liable for undue delay inviting disciplinary action and recovery of loss to the Government on account of penal interest which become payable on this count. 10. Continuing with notice of provisions of Pension Rules, in chronology, another provision, requires attention is comments made at the bottom of Rule 197, which is straightway reproduced herebelow:- “...... This imposes on heads of offices, the duty to ensure that service-books contain a complete, correct and upto-date record of services, that all important events including date of initial appointment, confirmation, increments, promotion, departmental examination, leave, suspension, break in services, unauthorized absence, authenticated date of birth, date of retirement and certificates of annual verification of services are recorded in service-books over dated signatures of head of office.” 11. Another provision which require notice of, is clause (2) of Rule 201, which runs as follows:- “(2) The sanctioning authority has special responsibility of ensuring that orders sanctioning the pension are sent to the Accountant-General in time enough to enable him to issue the pension payment order not later than the date on which the Government servant is due to retire. Order sanctioning the pension may issue not more than one month in advance of the due date of retirement, and the Accountant-General may issue the pension payment order not more than a fortnight in advance thereof.” 12. References, which is not in anyway exhaustive, to some of the above provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and some of the Government instructions issued from time to time, has been made only to demonstrate that, while making provisions in the Rules for grant of pension to a Government servant, State Government (from the time the Rules were framed) was conscious of the urgency in the matter of sanction and start of pension to a retiring employee. It was also conscious of the delay being caused in the matter at different levels by its different functionaries, causing financial hardship to the retired employee and/or his family, in the hour of dire need. The instructions noticed above, and many more, issued from time to time, patently establish that State Government had been making all attempts to impress upon its functionaries to act in the matter with due diligence and expedition. Therefore clear instructions, repeatedly, were issued to the concerned officials to prepare advance list of employees retiring in the next 18 months, to ensure making all necessary entries in the service book of the concerned employee and keep it upto date during the service period of the employee itself, to initiate fixation of pension of the retiring employee well in advance, if necessary by calling an employee to submit a formal application, to submit the pension paper of the employee to the Accountant General, with all details duly filled up in the format prescribed with prescribed forwarding letter and sanction order well in time, to enable the Accountant General to issue authorization order in advance to enable the concerned employee to draw his pension from the very next month of his retirement and provision for sanction of provisional pension and gratuity immediately, in case of any delay in sanction of final pension. The anxiety of the State Government cannot be better demonstrated, than by a letter issued in 1993 from the office of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. The anxiety of the State Government cannot be better demonstrated, than by a letter issued in 1993 from the office of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. It would be appropriate to reproduce some part of the letter itself for easy reference as here below:- ^^fo”k;&ok)ZD; isa’ku rFkk e`R;q≶&lsok fuo`fRr miknku dh Lohd`fr es foyac mlds pyrs gkbZ dksVZ&lqizhe dksVZ es ljdkj ds fo:) dslA 1- mi;qZDr fo”k;d ij vkidk futh /;ku vkd`”V djrs gq, eq>s dguk gS fd orZeku es gkbZ dksVZ ,oa lqizhe dksVZ es ljdkj ds fo:) isa’ku lac/kh fujFkZd dsl gks jgs gSA vf/kdka’k U;k;ns’kks es ljdkj dks isuy baVªsLV ds lkFk isa’ku@miknku vFkok Hkfo”; fuf/k dk Hkqxrku djuk iM+ jgk gSA ------------ ------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- 4- d`i;k is’kau] miknku ,oa Hkfo”; fuf/k ds ekeyks dk Rofjr fu”iknku gsrq fu;fer leh{kk vius Lrj ls vo’; fd;k djsA foRr foHkkx ds ladYi laŒ 3014 fnŒ 31-7-1980 dk xgu v/;;u ,oa vuqikyu gksuk pkfg, rkfd ljdkj dks dsoy vuko’;d dsl ls gh eqfDr ugh feys cfYd cdk;ksa ds Hkqxrku es isuy bUVªsLV ugh nsuk iM+sA foHkkxk/;{kks ls vuqjks/k gS fd is’kau ekeyks dh xgu leh{kk izR;sd nks ekg ds vafre ‘kfuokj dks xgu :Ik ls djsA 5- foHkkxh; lfpoks ls vuqjks/k gS fd os mijksDr fo”k; ij =Sekfld ¼tuojh] vizSy] tqykbZZ ,o vDVwcj½ izfrosnu ef=eaMy lfpoky; dks HkstsA ¼i= la[;k 3@lhŒ,lŒ@,eŒ&304@91&3665 fnukad 5-10-1993½^^ 13. One cabinet decision in this regard, vide Memo No. 10804F. One cabinet decision in this regard, vide Memo No. 10804F. dated 9.10.1973, holding unnecessary delay in disposal of pension case as a case of corruption, calling for severe punishment is also worth reproducing here:- ^^fo”k; %& isa’ku ekeyks ds fu”iknu es vuko’;d foyEc dks Hkz”Vkpkj ekudj dM+h ls dM+h ltk nsus ds lEcU/k esA izk;% ljdkj dks ns[kus es ;g vk jgk gS fd foRr foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 1070&foŒ fnukad 23 tuojh] 1974 es fufgr lsok ls fuo`Rr gksus okys ljdkjh lsodks ds isa’ku dkxtkr rS;kj djus ds lEcU/k es vkns’kks dh mis{kk cgqr ls dk;kZy;ks }kjk dh tk jgh gSA egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj ds is’kau ls lEcfU/kr vkifRr;ks ds fucVkjs es Hkh bu dk;kZy;ks }kjk vuko’;d foyEc fd;k tk jgk gSA fu/kkZfjr le; ij vkSicfU/kr isa’ku@ikfjokfjd isa’ku ,oa miknku dh Lohd`fr ugh gksus rFkk isa’ku dkxtkr egkys[kkdkj fcgkj dks ugh Hksts tkus ds dkj.k lsok fuo`Rr ljdkjh lsodks@e`r ljdkjh lsodks ds ifjokjks dks vR;f/kd vkfFkZd dfBukbZ;ks ls xqtjuk iM+ jgk gSA la{ksi es] vHkh Hkh cgqr ls dk;kZy;ks }kjk isa’ku ekeys ds fu”iknu es vuko’;d foyEc fd;k tk jgk gS ,oa ljdkj ds vkns’kks dk mYya?ku fd;k tk jgk gSA 2- ea=h ifj”kn us fnukad 10 ebZ] 1974 dh fo’ks”k cSBd es dk;Z fu”iknu es foyEc ds lEcU/k es fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k gS& ^^dk;Z fu”iknu ls vuko’;d foyEc dks Hkz”Vkpkj ekudj rnuqlkj dM+h ls dM+h ltk nh tk;A^^ 3- mijksDr fu.kZ; ds lnaHkZ es ;g dguk gS fd isa’ku ekeyks ds lEcU/k es Hkh ,slh ‘kadk gksrh gS fd Hkz”Vkpkj ds dkj.k gh cgqr ekeyks es blds fu”iknu es foyEc fd;k tkrk gS ,oa lsok fuo`Rr ljdkjh lsodks ,oa e`r ljdkjh lsodks ds ifjokjks dks ijs’kku fd;k tkrk gSA vr% ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd isa’ku ekeyks ds fu”iknu es vuko’;d foyEc dks Hkh Hkz”Vkpkj ekuk tk; rFkk blds fy, mRrjnk;h Lkjdkjh lsodks dks dM+h ls dM+h ltk nsus ds lEcU/k es vko’;d dkjZOkkbZ dh tk;A 4- bl vkns’k dks d`i;k vko’;d le>k tk;] ,oa vius foHkkx@dk;kZy; ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ks ds lHkh lEcfU/kr inkf/kdkfj;ks ,oa deZPkkfj;ks dks blls fuf’pr :i es voxr djk;k tk; ftlls isa’ku ekeyks ds foyEc ds ifj.kke ds lEcU/k es dqN xyrQgeh ugh jg tk;A bl izlax es] vkidk /;ku eq[; lfpo ds ifji= la[;k 5232 foŒ] fnukad 23 ebZ] 1974 dh df.Mdk 6 dh vksj Hkh vkd`”V fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 14. But it is really painful to notice that, in spite of passage of more than half a century of independence, and in spite of issuance of repeated instructions, letters, warnings, memos by the State Government, at times on the aid and advice of Accountant General and Comptroller and Auditor-General of India and Cabinet declaring unnecessary delay as a case of corruption, situation has not improved and large number of retired employees or their beneficiaries have become victim of this malady all pervasive in the offices of the State Government, compelling them to move this Court for their grievance, resulting into burdening of this Court with thousands of, otherwise, unnecessary litigation, which, in normal course, should have been stood addressed and redressed by the head of offices/ sanctioning authorities with the help of the Accountant General's office, if not before due to some compelling reasons, at least, soon after the retirement/death-in-harness of the employee concerned. It is all the more painful to notice that more than 95% cases coming to this Court with such grievances are of Class-III and Class-IV employees only. It is, indeed a rare occasion to notice a case of a Class-I or Class-II officer coming to this Court for such a grievance, which also comes only in case of serious dispute about entitlement of some items arises. It appears that, on the one hand, while in cases of Class-I and Class-II officers, all the relevant Rules, instructions and memos of the State Government are meticulously followed, on the other hand, in case of Class-III and Class-IV employees, all such provisions and instructions are conveniently forgotten by the head of the office/sanctioning authorities, resulting into their cases of pension and other retiral dues remaining pending for years at different levels in the respective administrative office. This callous and indifferent approach of heads of offices/sanctioning authorities towards plight of the Class-III and Class-IV employees who retired or died-in-harness cannot be termed as innocuous inaction. It is definitely deliberate and mala fide. 15. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to issue the following directions:- (1) Each head of the office/sanctioning authority shall immediately take up the case of the respective employee of each writ application. He shall collect all necessary information, and ask the employee to complete the formalities, if not done already, for purposes of settling the claims under different heads in respect of the said employee. He shall collect all necessary information, and ask the employee to complete the formalities, if not done already, for purposes of settling the claims under different heads in respect of the said employee. He shall also check up the entries in the service book of the employee in this regard and up-date the same in respect of all items, as mentioned in the comments under Rule 197, as quoted above. (2) Thereafter calculation will be made with regard to each and every item of entitlement of the concerned Government servant. This will include pension/family pension, other retiral dues under different heads, as also dues of service period, such as arrears of differential amount of salary on account of revision of pay-scale, grant of increment, grant of promotion, etc. as he may be found entitled to upon correction, updation and completion of entries in the service book of the concerned employee by the head of the office. The calculation shall include amount of interest also, wherever admissible under law or made admissible by any letter/instruction of the Government, including as made admissible by letter no. M. No. P.C.2-1. 16/79/3155 dated 7.11.1981. (3) This exercise shall be required to be done by the respective District Provident Officers also in cases of claims of non-payment or short payment of provident fund or incorrect calculation of up-to-date interest at the prescribed rate applicable from time to time. (4) Thereafter, the head of office/sanctioning authority shall pass/issue sanction order, or authorization letter as the case may be, in respect of all the amount found due in respect of the concerned employee upon calculation under different heads and send the same with all requisite information and documents/papers to the Accountant General, the concerned Treasury Officer or any other officer/authority responsible for issue of authorization letter in respect of the amount, as the case may be. Simultaneously, a complete set of calculation charts made in respect of different heads of entitlement, alongwith sanction orders shall be handed over to the concerned Government servant/his beneficiary/nominee/successor, as the case may be, or will be sent to him through registered post. The calculation charts must contain references of relevant letters/ instructions/circulars etc. or decision of a court of law based on which the calculation has been made. The calculation charts must contain references of relevant letters/ instructions/circulars etc. or decision of a court of law based on which the calculation has been made. (5) All these exercise must be completed by the head of office/sanctioning authority/ provident fund officer/any other authority/officer responsible for the same, within three months from the date of this order. (6) The Accountant General, or any other authority (if he is not the head of office/ sanctioning authority himself), responsible for issue of authorization letter (authority slip) in respect of any amount under any head, shall issue the same within one month from the date of receipt of such sanction order from the head of office/sanctioning authority. (7) While the issue with regard to power of the respondents authorities to withhold or deduct a part/whole of pension as an interim measure during the pendency of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is pending for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench being referred to by this Court by an order reported in 2005(2) PLJR 638 , it cannot be disputed that, even in the light of earlier Division Bench decision, the power of withholding 10% pension in normal cases of pending proceeding has to be exercised "in rarest of rare cases", "objectively and judiciously" and "with care and caution". (8) In case any adverse order is passed against a Government servant or entitlement or part of it is denied in respect of any claim under any head; the same shall be communicated to him under the signature of head of office/sanctioning authority within the same time with specific reference to the provision of law/Government instructions/ judgment of this Court, in terms of which the same has been done. 16. Now the question which falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on the amount of dues which shall be paid to them in terms of this order. Reference in this regard is made to an order of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [reported in (2001)9 SCC 687 ] wherein, on all paid amount, an interest @ 18% p.a. was allowed by the Apex Court due to delay in payment. Yet another order of the Apex Court is in the case of A. Sulekha vs. N.A. Das & Ors. [reported in (2001)9 SCC 687 ] wherein, on all paid amount, an interest @ 18% p.a. was allowed by the Apex Court due to delay in payment. Yet another order of the Apex Court is in the case of A. Sulekha vs. N.A. Das & Ors. [reported in (2006)13 SCC 399] in which ground of withholding of payment of retiral benefits was not accepted and interest on the amount was awarded on account of delay in payment. 17. It is evident from the provisions of law and Government instructions noticed above that State Government, from time to time, have been emphasizing for early settlement of pension cases to mitigate the hardships, to which the Government servant and/or his family becomes exposed to upon his retirement or sudden death. But, as noticed, this could not stir the officials responsible in the matter and chronic delay in the matter of settlement of pension cases has continued without justification. It is really shocking that warning and threat of severe punishment had also no effect, may be, due to lack of will of the Government to enforce it. It is well acknowledged that the failure of Government and its functionaries to fulfil their legal obligations and perform their statutory duties compels the Court to interfere in their functioning and to issue mandamus for the same. 18. In the circumstances, this Court thinks it only fit and proper that the petitioners be awarded penal interest on the amount which was due to them on and after filing of the writ application and hence, interest @ 18% p.a. is awarded to the petitioners on all amounts which were paid to them after filing of the writ application or shall be paid to them henceforth. This interest shall be over and above the statutory interest to which they may be entitled to and this shall be calculated with effect from the date of filing of the respective writ petitions till the date of payment of the principal amount and shall be calculated and paid alongwith the principal amount within the same time as aforesaid. This interest shall be over and above the statutory interest to which they may be entitled to and this shall be calculated with effect from the date of filing of the respective writ petitions till the date of payment of the principal amount and shall be calculated and paid alongwith the principal amount within the same time as aforesaid. However, if in a particular case it is established that, in spite of a written request or communication served on the particular Government servant, before his retirement or within two years of his retirement, he has not completed the formalities, he shall be entitled for interest only from the date he responded to the said written request or communication. However, this shall not be applicable in cases of communications sent to the employee after two years of his retirement or after filing of the writ application or after issue of the order. 19. But having awarded interest on account of delay in calculation and payment of legitimate dues in all cases, this Court is of the view that it will not be proper to saddle the public exchequer with this extra burden for no fault at the Government level. It is apparent that the individual functionaries of the State Government at different level have not adhered to and complied with the requirements of law and instructions issued in the matter from time to time, apparently due to lack of will of the State Government to enforce its decisions. An effort was made by this Court through order passed in the case of Mostt. Rukmini Devi vs. State [ 1996(2) PLJR 348 ] followed by several orders to cure this malady, but the same eventually became ineffective as the officers/employees at the root of it remained unaffected. 20. In the circumstances, the head of the concerned Department, namely, the Commissioner and Secretary, is directed to hold an enquiry, or get an enquiry held by a senior official of the Department, in each case, to fix up the responsibility for delay in settlement and payment of retiral benefits of the concerned Government servant, and after due notice and opportunity, direct for realization of the amount so paid by way of interest from the salary of the official(s)/employee(s) found responsible for the same. In case more than one official/employee is found responsible in this regard, order of proportionate deduction from their salary shall be passed. This enquiry must be completed and orders of recovery of amount from the salary of the concerned official(s)/ employee(s) must be passed within a period of four months from the date of this order, failing which, it shall be presumed that the delay in the matter was caused at the Departmental level or at the level of Deputy Secretary/concerned Officer (incharge pension cases) in the Department and the amount of said interest shall be realized from the salary of the concerned Commissioner and Secretary or the Deputy Secretary/ concerned Officer (in-charge pension cases) in the department, as the case may be Additionally, the head of the department, namely, the Commissioner and Secretary shall be well advised in appropriate cases to take disciplinary action against the responsible officer(s)/employee(s) in terms of Cabinet decision dated 10.5.1974 as mentioned in the said letter dated 5.10.1993 quoted above. 21. However, it is made clear that, in case of any short or excess payment, on account of any miscalculation, the authority/officer/employee making the calculation shall be personally liable to pay penal interest on the amount @ 18% compoundable quarterly from his own salary, as an when the said miscalculation is detected, either in any proceeding in any competent court of law, or by any higher official or in an audit inspection. 22. In the result, with the above observations and directions, all the writ applications listed in this batch are disposed of. 23. However, the entire batch of cases shall be listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on 16.2.2009 to enable the learned respective counsel for respondents to report compliance, or otherwise, of the directions issued hereinabove. 24. For the purpose of appearance of respective counsel for respondents, the cases shall be treated to have been taken up separately. 25. This order has been passed in presence of learned Government Advocate No. 1, learned Government Advocate No. 5, learned Standing Counsel No. 21 and learned counsel for the petitioners of the respective cases. 26. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Government Advocate No. 1 to enable him to communicate the same to the Chief Secretary with a request to him to further communicate the same to all the head of the departments. 26. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Government Advocate No. 1 to enable him to communicate the same to the Chief Secretary with a request to him to further communicate the same to all the head of the departments. Let a copy of this order be also handed over to Mr. P.K. Rajgrihar, learned counsel, for its communication to the Accountant General.