JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5719 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was disposed of by recording a finding to the effect that the employees of the Municipal Corporation cannot claim pension beyond what has been provided under the Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 2011 and the rules framed in this regard. The learned Single Judge had refused to interfere with the order dated 07.09.2016 (impugned) rendering the impugned order as infructuous and to that extent writ petition was allowed with the further observation for issuing no direction having found no infirmity in the calculation of pension payable to the appellant/writ-petitioner as pleaded in the counter affidavit. 3. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein read hereunder as: The appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant/Lower Division Assistant on 01.04.1971 by the then Dhanbad Municipality. The appellant/writ-petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and finally superannuated from the said post in the year 2007. He approached the authority for the payment of pensionary benefits which has been fixed and paid for the months from February, 2011 to August 2011 and thereafter stopped. Again from January, 2013 to July, 2014 it was paid but again it was stopped. According to the appellant/writ-petitioner, the total dues on account of pension up to June, 2015 comes to Rs. 6,37,642/- for which the respondents may be directed to pay the same with interest. It has further been contended before the writ Court that the appellant/writ-petitioner is eligible for pension as per the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 but the pension so calculated is not in pursuance to the provision of the aforesaid rules, therefore, the writ petition has been filed for seeking such direction. The respondent-Dhanbad Municipal Corporation had appeared and filed counter affidavit denying the claim. In the counter affidavit the plea had also been taken about the illegal occupation of the quarter for about ten years from 01.04.2007 to 13.01.2017 for which market rate has been calculated at Rs. The respondent-Dhanbad Municipal Corporation had appeared and filed counter affidavit denying the claim. In the counter affidavit the plea had also been taken about the illegal occupation of the quarter for about ten years from 01.04.2007 to 13.01.2017 for which market rate has been calculated at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 4,72,000/- and the same is required to be recovered from the appellant/writ-petitioner. The appellant/writ-petitioner had approached to this Court on earlier occasion by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3559 of 2015 wherein direction was passed upon the respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad to take decision on the appellant/writ-petitioner’s claim. In pursuance thereof, decision was taken on 07.09.2016 whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner for pension was rejected on the ground that the pension paper has not been filled up in the due format within time as provided under the Pension Rules, 1987 as also the appellant/writ-petitioner had been noticed to vacate the quarter. The said order, i.e. order dated 07.09.2016, was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5719 of 2016 wherein the learned Single Judge had decided the issue by not interfering with the order dated 07.09.2016. Taking into consideration the averment made by the respondent-Dhanbad Municipal Corporation in the affidavit about the payment of pension made in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner as also the other post retiral dues, the writ Court held the impugned order, i.e. 07.09.2016, as infructuous considering the fact that the amount has been paid. The appellant/writ-petitioner has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that whatever payment has been made towards the post retiral dues, the same cannot be construed to be in consonance with the provision of Rules 43 and 44 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6066 of 2012 disposed of on 11.08.2017. 5. This Court after taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant/writ-petitioner had passed an order on 28.09.2020 directing the State to apprise this Court as to whether any grant or revision of pension to the Municipal Employees, as per Rule 44 of the Rules, 1987 requires sanction of the State Government or not? 5. This Court after taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant/writ-petitioner had passed an order on 28.09.2020 directing the State to apprise this Court as to whether any grant or revision of pension to the Municipal Employees, as per Rule 44 of the Rules, 1987 requires sanction of the State Government or not? If it was required then whether it has been granted or not? If it has not been sanctioned then why the same has not been sanctioned as per the mandate of Rule 44 of the said Rules. For ready reference the said order is being reproduced herein-below: “With consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, has urged that Rules 43 and 44 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 cannot be considered separately. Rule 44 of the said Rules does not stand alone as it has been read along with Rule 43. As per Rule 43 for any increase or relief in pension either temporary or permanent the Municipal Corporation can take such decision which has been sanctioned by the Government. However, Rule 44 of the said Rules provides that the amount of pension (Rate or Slab) when revised in the case of Government servant from or after the date of adoption of this rule would be admissible to the Municipal employees also. Now, we would like to ask to the State Government as to whether any grant or revision of pension to the Municipal employees, as per Rule 44 of the said Rules requires sanction of the State Government or not? If it was required then whether it has been granted or not? If it has not been sanctioned then why the same has not been sanctioned as per the mandate of Rule 44 of the said Rules. As prayed, put up this matter on 19th October, 2020.” 6. If it was required then whether it has been granted or not? If it has not been sanctioned then why the same has not been sanctioned as per the mandate of Rule 44 of the said Rules. As prayed, put up this matter on 19th October, 2020.” 6. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction dated 28.09.2020, the State has filed an affidavit stating inter-alia therein that in pursuance to the provision of Rule 44 of the Rules, 1987 no sanction of the State Government is required for revision of pension for the municipal employees and when the Government from time to time revises the pension of the Government servants, it also becomes admissible to the Municipal employees. Further, it has been stated at paragraph-8 that the provision of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1987 gives power to the State Government to increase or give relief in pension beyond what is already prescribed and the local body will be bound to pay it. For ready reference, paragraphs 7 and 8 are being reproduced herein-below: “7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that from Rule 44 of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 it is evident that revision of pension for Municipal employees does not require sanction of State Government and when the Government from time to time revises the pension of Government servant, it also becomes admissible to the Municipal employees. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it is relevant to mention here that Rule 43 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 gives power to the State Government to increase or give relief in pension beyond what is already prescribed and the Local Body will be bound to pay it.” 7. The learned counsel for the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation after looking to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State in pursuance to the order dated 28.09.2020 had sought for time to file reply and thereby the matter was allowed to be listed on 09.11.2020 but no such reply was filed on or before 09.11.2020, therefore, the order for personal appearance of the Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad had been passed. 8. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Satendra Kumar, at present working as Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad has appeared and tendered unqualified apology for not filing affidavit in terms of the order dated 09.11.2020. 8. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Satendra Kumar, at present working as Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad has appeared and tendered unqualified apology for not filing affidavit in terms of the order dated 09.11.2020. It has been stated in the affidavit dated 01.12.2020 that the provision of Rules 43 and 44 of the Rules, 1987 is binding upon the Municipal Corporation, in exercise of its power vested in absence of the elected body has decided to implement the decision and direction of the Government of Jharkhand. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the matter was discussed with the Accounts Department and as such it has taken some time but from the discussion it transpires that it has huge financial implications. It has further been stated that since the provision of Rules 43 and 44 of the Rules, 1987 is applicable and as such the appellant/writ-petitioner is entitled to get the pension at par with the State Government employees as has been revised from time to time. 9. Learned counsel for the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, however, has sought for some time to make payment in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner on the basis of the revised pension. The relevant part of the paragraph of the affidavit filed by the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation dated 01.12.2020 is being reproduced herein-below: “3. That after deliberations and discussions, it is submitted that interpretation of Rules 43 and 44 of the Rules, 1987 given by the State of Jharkhand is binding on the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and, therefore, no contrary view or interpretation can be place on record by the Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the Municipal Commissioner in exercise of its power vested in absence of the elected body has decided to implement the decision and direction of the Government of Jharkhand. 4. That I say that the delay in filing this affidavit is only on account of the fact that some time was consumed in deliberating the matter amongst officers concerned and also consulting the Accounts Department as it has huge financial implications. Furthermore, at present the elected body of the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation is not in existence. The department had no intention to delay the filing of the affidavit in response to the State Government’s affidavit.” 10. Mr. Furthermore, at present the elected body of the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation is not in existence. The department had no intention to delay the filing of the affidavit in response to the State Government’s affidavit.” 10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that now there is no dispute about the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner, as such, the appeal may be disposed of with a direction upon the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation to disburse the amount within a period of three months. 11. At this juncture, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the appellant/writ-petitioner has retired in the year 2007 and the pensionary benefit as per the statutory provision has not been paid fairly for a period of thirteen years, therefore, interest may be awarded. 12. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the affidavits filed by the respective parties, is of the view that the instant appeal is to be disposed of on the basis of the averment made at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad. 13. Accordingly, and as agreed by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation in presence of Mr. Satendra Kumar, the Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, this Court, hereby, directs the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad to disburse the amount pertaining to pension in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner on the basis of the revised rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 14. So far as the statutory interest upon the delayed payment of pensionary benefit is concerned, we have considered the judgment rendered in Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 687 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to direct to make payment with simple interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from the date of retirement till the date of payment on the ground that the retiral dues has been paid after much delay by making an observation therein at pargraph-3 to the effect that in case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. Further, at paragraph-4 by passing an order for making payment at simple interest @ 18% p.a. it has been observed that there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. In D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 894 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to direct for making payment of interest @ 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity on the ground of delay of making payment of the retiral dues. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has taken into consideration the ratio laid down in State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated its view holding that “Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.” 15. This Court, considering the aforesaid judgments as referred hereinabove, is of the view that admittedly the appellant/writ-petitioner has retired in the year 2007 but the pensionary benefit has not been paid as yet in pursuance to the revised rate of pension as provided under Rules 43 and 44 of the Rules, 1987, hence, applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where interest with simple interest to the extent of 6% is required to be imposed upon the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation upon the payment of pensionary benefit from the due date till the date of realization. 16. The part of the order of interest as directed above is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case since the appellant/writ-petitioner is fighting for his claim immediately from the date of his retirement by filing series of litigation and as such, said part of the order is not to be treated as precedent. 17. 16. The part of the order of interest as directed above is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case since the appellant/writ-petitioner is fighting for his claim immediately from the date of his retirement by filing series of litigation and as such, said part of the order is not to be treated as precedent. 17. So far as the recovery of the amount for illegal occupation of the quarter in question is concerned, this Court is not interfering with the decision of the State Government, leaving it open upon the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation to take recourse of the remedy available under the statute. 18. With the above observation and direction, the order passed by the writ Court is modified. 19. In the result, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 21. Personal appearance of the Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad is dispensed with.