Order This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 30.9.2004 and 31.8.2005, Annexures-7 & 8 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay interest on the amount of alleged god own shortage @ 18% per annum. The petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus for payment of Rs. 93,419/- payable towards the earned leave and gratuity after adjusting a sum of Rs. 55,856.97 which was payable by the petitioner to the respondents and he has further prayed that other retiral benefits including Group Insurance, Pension, etc. also be released. 2. The petitioner has been working as an Assistant in the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation and during his service tenure, certain shortages in the god own were found and a sum of Rs. 1,49,894.97 was .9irected to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner was compulsorily retired in the month of March, 2003 and till then, a sum of Rs. 90,328/- was deducted from his salary and still there was outstanding of RS.59,566.97 was against the petitioner. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 3,710/was recovered in the month of April, 2003 and thus, till April, 2003, a total sum of Rs.90,328/- plus 3,710/- was recovered from the petitioner and he was further liable to pay a sum of Rs. 55,856.97.only which he has prayed to be adjusted against the amount of his earned leave and gratuity. 3. The respondents have also filed the counter affidavit in which they have admitted that the amount of earned leave and the gratuity is payable to the petitioner and the amount of G.I.S. and provident fund can only be released after meeting proper formalities by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demand for the interest was raised by Annexures-7 & 8 to the writ petition from the petitioner and a reply thereof was given to the respondents and thereafter the recovery including the interest has been made. He further pointed out that the Rule which has been quoted in paragraph 17 ,of the counter affidavit does not provide that the respondents are entitled to get the interest on the amount recovered from his employees apart from the amount which has been defalcated. He further pointed out that the Rule which has been quoted in paragraph 17 ,of the counter affidavit does not provide that the respondents are entitled to get the interest on the amount recovered from his employees apart from the amount which has been defalcated. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the contention and contended that at different times the orders have been passed for recovery of the amount in different district and the amount which has been raised is related to the interest and a proper show cause notice has been given and thereafter, the amount is being recovered from the petitioner. He further pointed out that the respondents are entitled to assess the interest by way of loss sustained by the respondents for the laches on the part of the petitioner. He also relied upon a amended Rules which is annexed in the counter affidavit as Annexure-A. 4. After due consideration of the sub• mission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident from the record that the respondents has not brought on record any order by which the departmental proceeding has been initiated or he has been found guilty under the relevant conduct Rules. On the basis of the admission of the petitioner, the recoveries have been made al different times from different districts. It also transpires from the record that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.1 ,49,894.77 and a sum of Rs. 94,038/- was deducted from his salary till April, 2003. The learned counsel for the respondents has not filed any previous order by which the recovery was directed, though the recovery was made on different occasions which is admitted by the petitioner. It is also evident from the record that a show cause notice has been served by the respondents on the petitioner. Even if, the said amount would have been included in the principal amount, the respondents could have filed the said order before this Court to show that the principal amount also. includes the amount of interest. It is not evident from perusal of Annexures-7 & 8 that the amount was not inclusive of the interest in the original order. If it was inclusive in the original order, there was no need to give a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner to pay the interest. includes the amount of interest. It is not evident from perusal of Annexures-7 & 8 that the amount was not inclusive of the interest in the original order. If it was inclusive in the original order, there was no need to give a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner to pay the interest. If the employer, for any reason, did not include such interest in the original order, it is not open to the employer to have a second thought on the issue of interest after several years claiming the payment of interest from the employee for the entire period which has been allowed to lapse. As such, the respondents are not entitled to recover the interest. Besides, this matter is squarely covered by the judgments rendered in L.PA No.93 of 2009 (Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. Nageshwar Singh) and in L.PA No. 283 of 2010 (Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation vs. Binit Kumar) of this Court. The respondents may adjust a sum of Rs.55,856.97 towards the amount of earned leave and the gratuity and the rest amount may be released immediately and the amount of group insurance, pension, etc. the petitioner as soon as completes his formalities, the Department would issue the direction to the respective departments to pay the amount and said amount be paid expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No order as to cost.