Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who retired from the post of Clerk in a Plus Two Lalit Narayan Mishra High School, Dhanama, Jamui has moved this writ application seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of his arrears of pension Rs. 3,59,484/- (Three Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four only) together with all consequential benefits including interest thereon. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his post retiral dues were not paid within a reasonable time and only after a huge delay of 2 ½ years approximately the pension and gratuity were sanctioned and then ordered to be paid by the Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna. The petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2013 whereas the pension intimation memo and D.C.R. Gratuity Payment Order (Annexure 1 & 2 respectively) were issued on 22.06.2015, thereafter the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Jamui sent no dues certificate on 29.07.2015, the petitioner had to wait for another seven months when he received the gratuity amount from Bank on 09.02.2016. By enclosing his bank statement (Annexure 3) with the writ application the petitioner has shown that the gratuity amount was paid on 09.02.2016, but so far as arrears of pension is concerned, only a sum of Rs. 2,25,013/- as against the total amount of arrears of pension from 01.02.2013 to 31.01.2016 being Rs. 5,84,497/- was deposited in his account. From 1st of February, 2016 the petitioner was paid his regular pension. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that he submitted representation before the Branch Manager, Jamuanwa Branch, Punjab National Bank, Gaya (respondent no. 7) on 18.03.2016 (Annexure 5) and requested him to make payment of arrears of pension. He kept on representing before the Branch Manager by two other representations dated 31.10.2017 and 15.03.2018 (Annexure 6 & 7 respectively), the rest of the amount towards arrears of pension were neither paid nor any communication in this regard was made with him. 5. The writ application was registered in this Court on 22.06.2019. On 24.06.2019 a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court granted four weeks time to the respondents to file counter affidavits. The District Programme Officer, Jamui submitted a short counter affidavit. 5. The writ application was registered in this Court on 22.06.2019. On 24.06.2019 a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court granted four weeks time to the respondents to file counter affidavits. The District Programme Officer, Jamui submitted a short counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is totally silent as to why it took 2 ½ years approximately in sending of pension papers along with service book of the petitioner to the Accountant General, Bihar for issuing authority slip. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar (respondent no. 9 & 10) has stated in their counter affidavit that on the basis of sanction from the department vide letter no. 190 dated 23.05.2015 the Office of the Accountant General had issued authority of pension and gratuity dated 22.06.2015. It is further stated that the matter of payment of arrears of pension is related to the concerned Treasury/Bank. 7. When the writ application was taken up during the pandemic period through virtual court proceeding, on 17.06.2020, this Court noticed the grievance of the petitioner and called upon learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank to file their affidavits clearly stating the time which has been consumed either by the Treasury Officer, Gaya or by the Bank in making payment of the arrears of pension to the petitioner. At this stage, this Court was informed that the arrears of pension was paid by the Bank during pendency of the writ application on 01.08.2019, therefore the grievance of the petitioner remained limited to payment of interest for the huge delay caused in payment of the post retiral dues. 8. The subsequent affidavits filed on behalf of the Senior Treasury Officer (respondent no. 4) disclosed that the pensioner retired from service on 31.01.2013 but the P.P.O. of the pensioner from the Accountant General, Bihar has been received in the month of July, 2015. The no dues certificate of the petitioner had been sent by the District Programme Officer, Jamui vide letter no. 1315 dated 29.07.2015. After appearance of the pensioner and submission of pensioner copy of pension authority in the treasury the respondent no. 4 had sent the letter to the District Programme Officer, Jamui for verification of no dues certificate of the pensioner. After receiving the verification of no dues certificate from the District Programme Officer, Jamui, the respondent no. 4 had initiated the process of pension payment. 9. 4 had sent the letter to the District Programme Officer, Jamui for verification of no dues certificate of the pensioner. After receiving the verification of no dues certificate from the District Programme Officer, Jamui, the respondent no. 4 had initiated the process of pension payment. 9. It is further submitted that in the matter of pension payment, pension paying bank is also treated as Disbursing Officer of the pensioner, therefore respondent no. 4 had requested Punjab National Main Branch, Dhamitola for sending the bank statement of the petitioner vide letter no. 547 dated 17.08.2020. The Bank sent the said statement and that shows at this stage that now the entire arrears of pension has been paid. 10. The respondent no. 4 has stated that it was the Bank who has not paid the total arrears of pension for the period 01.02.2013 to January 2015. Respondent no. 4 has stated that it is the violation of instruction of Pension Payment Order issued by the Accountant General, Bihar. Thus, respondent no. 4 has taken a stand that the delay of three years in making payment of the rest of the amount towards arrears of pension is solely caused at the end of the Bank. 11. The respondent Bank has also filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 10.09.2020 itself and Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the Bank while making submissions referred the statements made therein, copy of the said supplementary counter affidavit has now been been brought on the record also. 12. The Bank has admitted that letter dated 29.07.2015 of the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Jamui was sent to the Treasury Officer and then to Bank. Only thing that is not very clear is that on which date this letter was sent to the Branch with PPO or separately but it is admitted that it was sent to the Branch as it is with the Branch. In course of argument, Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel has stated that in any case even if it is assumed that it was received in the year 2016 when the part payment was released to the petitioner, there is some apparent delay. On 10.09.2020, this Court took note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as under: – “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. On 10.09.2020, this Court took note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as under: – “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the Bank, has on instruction informed this court that no dues certificate was sent to the Bank. He has taken a fair stand on his part stating that even if it is assumed that no dues certificate was received in the year 2016, there is some apparent delay in payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel however submits that the Branch Manager of the Bank is unable to provide him the exact date of the receipt of the no objection, though the letter sent by the Senior Treasury Officer to the Bank contains a stipulation that there is no dues against the petitioner. Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned counsel represents the State, Mr. Raghwanand, learned counsel represents the Accountant General are present. Parties have concluded their argument. Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the Bank, is at liberty to place on record the copy of the letter which he intends to file in this case. List this case for judgment on Monday i.e. 14th September, 2020.” 13. This Court will first examine as to what relief may be granted to the petitioner in the matter of delayed payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity to an employee on his superannuation from service is not a bounty or a charity by an employer. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1972”) has been enacted to ensure an uniform pattern of gratuity to the employees throughout the country. Section ‘4’ provides that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment, after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Completion of continuous service of five years is not necessary where termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement. 14. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 states that “The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. 14. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 states that “The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 categorically says that if the amount of gratuity as payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer with the period specified in sub-section (3) the employer shall pay from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate fortified by the central government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits, as that government may by notification specify. Proviso to sub-section (3A) however carves out an exception by saying that no such interest shall be paid if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delay in payment on this ground. Section 8 says that if the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer within the prescribed time the controlling authority shall on an application made to it in this behalf issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector to recover the same together with compound interest thereon at such rate as the Central Government may by notification specify from the date of expiry of the prescribed time as arrears of land revenue and to pay the same person entitled therein. 15. In the present case the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2013 but there being no fault on his part, his gratuity payment were delayed for over three years. In fact the counter affidavit of the Accountant General has made it clear that the departmental sanction was granted vide letter no. 190 dated 23.05.2015 and the affidavit of Senior Treasury Officer discloses that ‘No Dues Certificate’ was issued by the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Jamui on 29.07.2015, thereafter it took more than sis months in making payment to the petitioner. The counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 neither explains the delay nor any reason has been shown attributable to the petitioner for such delay. The counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 neither explains the delay nor any reason has been shown attributable to the petitioner for such delay. In the opinion of this Court, therefore the petitioner has been able to establish his legal right to get the statutory interest in terms of sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act for the delayed period. This Court, therefore, directs respondent no. 1 to 4 to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner for the delayed period of two years four months. This Court is not inclined to grant any interest for the period taken in making payment of the gratuity amount after issuance of the authority slip for payment of gratuity till 09.02.2016 when the Bank actually paid the amount. 16. As regards the arrears of pension, again there is no plausible reason to explain the delay. The petitioner who remain deprived of his pension for three years is entitled to get interest for this period. Respondent no. 1 to 4 shall therefore pay interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed period and such interest shall be calculated separately on the each month’s pension on the date it become due till 29.02.2016 when the Bank made part payment against arrears of pension. Admittedly the regular pension of the petitioner has been paid from February 2016 only. Therefore for all previous arrears till this date i.e. 29.02.2016 respondent no. 1 to 4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum simple. 17. Now coming to the delay caused at the end of the Bank, the admitted position is that on 29.02.2016 the respondent no. 7 made part payment against arrears of pension. He was not justified in making part payment of Rs. 2,25,013/- only. The communication sent to the Bank has been brought on record and it clearly shows that the Senior Treasury Officer had duly informed the Bank that there was no dues against the petitioner and no payment has been made earlier. 7 made part payment against arrears of pension. He was not justified in making part payment of Rs. 2,25,013/- only. The communication sent to the Bank has been brought on record and it clearly shows that the Senior Treasury Officer had duly informed the Bank that there was no dues against the petitioner and no payment has been made earlier. Annexure R-7/C is a letter written by the Senior Treasury Officer, Gaya to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Gaya which is enclosed with the counter affidavit of the Bank and the same is extracted hereunder for a ready reference: – ^^dk;kZy; ftyk dks"kkxkj] x;kA i=kad 528 @dks"kkñ izs"kd] ojh; dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh] x;kA ANNEXURE : R-7/C: lsok esa] izcaèkd] iatkc us'kuy cSad] x;kA x;k] fnukad 14-11-2015 fo"k; %& Jh@Jherh lgkcqnhu [kk¡ èkkjd ihŒihŒvksŒ lañ&201511051808 dk isa'ku lEcfUèkr dkxtkr cksFk gkQ ewy :Ik ls LFkkukUrj.k djus ds lacaèk esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lacaèk esa dguk gS fd Jh@Jherh lgkcqnhu [kkW èkkjd ihñihñvksñ lañ & 201511051808 dk isa'ku dkxtkr cksFk gkQ ,oa QksVks fofgr izi=k esa vkSj cdk;k ls lacafèkr izfrosnu ds lkFk vkids 'kk[kk teqvkokW dks Hkqxrku gsrq vxzlfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA bl dk;kZy; ds }kjk isa'ku bR;kfn dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA Hkqxrku ds mijkUr isa'kuj dks isa'kuj izfr cqd izkIr djk nsuk gSA :ikUrj.k izkfèkdkj i= dh dafMdk ^2* esa egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj }kjk vafdr funsZ'k ds vkyksd esa Hkqxrku lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A chVhlh :y 2011 ds fu;e 201 ds rgr vki Hkh isa'kuj ds fudklh ,oa O;;u inkfèkdkjh gSA ÑIk;k lgh isa'kuj dh igpku dj fu;ekuqlkj lHkh vko';d dkxtkr izkIr dj cSad [kkrk ds ekè;e ls Hkqxrku dh fn'kk esa vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dh tk,A isa'kuj dk cSad [kkrk la[;k& 1632000100007613 gSA foHkkx ls izkIr ¼uks Mw;w foHkkxh; i=kad 1315 fnukad 29-07-15 ewy izfr layXu½ ds vkèkkj ij isa'ku bR;kfn dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS rks d`Ik;k lek;ksftr dj ysA izksfoftuy isa'ku rFkk miknku Hkqxrku dh fn'kk esa ;fn foHkkx }kjk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ;k dksbZ vU; cdk;k gks rks Hkqxrku gksus okyh jkf'k ls ,d eq'r lkeatu ¼dVkSrh½ djus ds i'pkr izkfèkdkj ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A vuqñ& cksFk gkQ ¼ewy½ miknku rFkk :ikarj.k izkfèkdkj i=k ¼ewy½ isa'kuj dh izfr lfgrA fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ojh; dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh] x;kA Kkikad ----------@dksñ] x;k fnukad ----------- izfrfyfi %& Jh@Jherh -------------------------- irk ----------------- dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA vuqjksèk gS fd cSad [kkrs ds ekè;e ls isa'ku izkIr djuk lwfpr fd;k tk;A ojh; dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh] x;kA** 18. Perusal of Annexure R-7/C shows that it duly mentions the no dues issued by the department vide letter no. 1315 dated 29.07.2015. It also contains a stipulation that no payment on account of pension etc. has been made by the said office, therefore the Branch Manager, Jamuanwa (respondent no. 7) was not justified in withholding the substantial amount of the petitioner on account of arrears of pension. The petitioner was already suffering because of the delay of over three years in getting his pensionary benefits, his difficulties were not understood by the respondent no. 7 and the petitioner was left waiting over three years thereafter. He had made several representations during this time to the Branch Manager but those representations were not attended to. This is nothing but an inaction on the part of the respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 5 Bank would, therefore, be liable to pay interest at the rate prevailing at the relevant time on the fixed deposits for a period of three years five months on the balance amount which were paid to the petitioner on 01.08.2019 only after filing of this writ application. Whatever be the rate of the fixed deposits prevailing in the Bank on 29.02.2016 shall be paid to the petitioner. 19. Since the Bank is custodian of public money, this Court is also of the considered view that due to any inaction on the part of it’s employee(s) if the Bank has to suffer and saddled with interest or cost, it is always open for the Bank to find out in accordance with law as to who is at fault and realize the said amount from the erring officials. In this connection this Court relies upon it’s judgment in the case of K.K. Pathak vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad & Others reported in 2019(1) PLJR 1051 [2019 (2) BLJ 60]. The judgment of this Court in K.K. Pathak’s case was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl) No. 3566/2019, however their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the same. 20. Let the entire payment be made to the petitioner by all concerned respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Judgment. 21. In the result, this writ application is allowed.