JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The petitioner before this Court, is at a very ripe age of his life now, having attained almost 91 years of age. The petitioner is contesting a judicial war for pressing his personal rights for the return of NSC/NDC certificates, amounting to Rs. 300/- which he had submitted at the time of getting an appointment with the Forest Department, where he was inducted into the services on 1st October 1957, wherein he had pledged the aforesaid NDC certificates, as a security for the purposes of procuring his appointment. 2. With the passage of time, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation having retired from his services on 31st March 1990. 3. The grievances of the petitioner as agitated in the present writ petition are that though despite having satisfactorily rendered his services, ever since his initial induction in 1957 and having attained the age of superannuation as back as in 1990, the NDC certificates, which he had pledged as a security for the purposes of his recruitment on 29th June 1964, had not been returned back to him along with the interest payable on it, hence the present writ petition. 4. When the writ petition was entertained, respondents were noticed; asking them to show-cause as to why the amount, which had been pledged by the petitioner way back in 1964, was not returned to him after his attainment of age of superannuation. 5. In order to fortify the aforesaid facts, with regard to the act and conduct of the respondents, this Court, by an order dated 5th September 2018, the part of which is extended hereunder, called upon the respondents as to why they have not complied the order dated 23rd August 2018 which was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, that the payment of the matured NDC certificates, why the same has not been remitted to the petitioner. The relevant part is extracted hereunder:- “This Court, as a last opportunity and with a warning to the authority, if the order dated 23rd August, 2018 is not complied with in its strict sense and the passbooks are not produced before this Court after making the complete up-to-date entry along with interest computed on it w.e.f. 1964, the respondent No. 4 will appear in person on 10th September, 2018 before this Court.” 6. The officer appeared before the Court. The officer appeared before the Court. He produced the requisite documents with regard to the NDC certificates i.e. deposits made by the petitioner on 29th February 1964, but, however, the passbook and the entries, which were made in it with regard to the interest, which had accrued on the said amount thus deposited, was not produced. 7. The matter was taken up today. Learned counsel for the respondent /Postal Department i.e. responded Nos. 5 and 6 herein, who are represented by Mrs. Monika Pant, learned Sanding Counsel, in order to justify the reasoning which contributed for non-refund of the NDC certificates, has made reference to the Rules called as “The Post Office Savings Certificates Rules, 1960”, which was notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its Notification dated 25th June 1960, which was amended from time to time. 8. She submitted that in accordance with the Rules particularly that contained under Rule 24, any investor, who has been issued with an NDC certificate of investments, made with the Postal Department, he or she has to approach before the Postal Department for the purposes to receive the amount, which is matured to be paid on account of deposits, made by the investors and the interest accrued on it. She submitted that since this stipulations provided under Rule 24, was not complied with by the petitioner, no responsibility could be harnessed upon the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, for their inability, to pay the principal amount and the interest, which had accrued on it, as the petitioner has not approached before the respondents for the remittance of the principal amount. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1960 is extracted hereunder:- “24. Discharge of Certificates. - (1) The person entitled to receive the amount due under a certificate shall, on its encashment, sign on the back thereof in token of having received the payment. (2) In the case of a certificate purchased on behalf of a minor who has since attained majority, the certificate shall be signed by that person himself, but his signature shall be attested either by the person who purchased it on his behalf or by any person who is known to the Postmaster. (3) A certificate of discharge may be issued by the post office to any person encashing a certificate on payment of the fee, specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 32. 9. (3) A certificate of discharge may be issued by the post office to any person encashing a certificate on payment of the fee, specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 32. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with regard to the implications of Rule 24 of Rules of 1960, will not be applicable in the case at hand, which is factually based upon a peculiar circumstance, because as per the opinion of this Court, the Rules of 1960, would only govern the inter se relationship between the Postal Department and the Investor, where, on maturing of the NDC certificate, the mode of discharge of certificates under Rule 24, would interse govern the relationship between the Investor and the Postal Department. That may not be the case herein, because in the present case, the petitioner while being inducted into the services in 1957 had extended his security, by way of furnishing the NDC certificates as detailed above before the respondent/forest department, as back as on 29th February 1964, and despite of having attained the age of superannuation on 31st March 1990, since there was nothing adverse which was found against him at the time when the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, the amount, which was given by way of a security and pledged by the petitioner, it ought to have been returned to him automatically. 10. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have filed their counter affidavit. The relevant answer to the inaction on part of the respondents for their non-remittance of the principal amount, along with the interest payable on it, has been answered by the learned Addl. CSC, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in para 4 of their counter affidavit, wherein they have submitted that on the attainment of the age of superannuation by the petitioner on 31st March 1990, the Forest Department has rather send the NCD certificate to the Postmaster, Ranikhet, for the purposes of transfer of the amount in the name of the Divisional Forest Officer, Badrinath, Gopeswar, vide its letter dated 20th April 1990. It has been further asserted that the counsel for the Forest Division, Gopeshwar, that the department had been consistently sending several reminders to the Postmaster, Ranikhet, for the remittance of the amount due under the NDC certificate, submitted by the petitioner in 1964, but no correspondence, as such, was received from the office of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, ensuring the remittance of the amount due to be paid to the petitioner, on the matured NDC certificate, which he had pledged by way of a Security at the time of getting an appointment with the Forest Department. 11. In view of the pleadings which has been raised in para 4, in fact, no liability, as such, could be fastened upon the respondents for their inaction on their part for non-remittance of the amount, for the reason being that after the attainment of the age of superannuation on 31st March 1990, they have contended that, they had discharged their part of responsibility, by forwarding the NDC certificates to the Postmaster, Ranikhet, who was thereafter otherwise was suppose to take an appropriate action on the receipt of the NDC certificate as pleaded in para 4 of the counter affidavit, and rather in view of the pleadings raised in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, and the communication, which was referred to therein, which is said to have been made by the department of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, they cannot be said to be at all responsible for non remittance of the amount due under the NDC certificates along with the interest, which could be payable to the petitioner as claimed by him. 12. This argument as extended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in their defense, has been answered by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though despite of having filed their counter affidavit on 22nd November 2018, they had remained silent with regard to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in para 4 of their counter affidavit, which was submitted on 16th August 2018. 13. 5 and 6, though despite of having filed their counter affidavit on 22nd November 2018, they had remained silent with regard to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in para 4 of their counter affidavit, which was submitted on 16th August 2018. 13. In fact, the reference, which has been made with regard to the effect of non remittance of the NDC certificate and particularly in the context of Rule 24, which has been sought to be referred to, is not a defense, which has been ever taken in the counter affidavit by the respondents. 14. Hence, in view of the judgement of Mohinder Singh Gill’s case, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, cannot carve out or take liberty to argue the matter, outside the ambit of the counter affidavit itself and that too when inaction on their part, is apparent on the face of the record, particularly, in the light of the contents of para 4 of the counter affidavit of respondent number 2, 3 and 4. 15. In that eventuality, this Court has got no option except to allow the writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus, commanding respondent Nos. 5 and 6, to forthwith remit the principal amount pledged by way of the NDC certificates, along with the interest payable on it, at the current bank rate, irrespective of any statutory interest prescribed under Rules of 1960, because the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot take advantage of their own inaction particularly when they had not responded to the correspondences made by the Forest Department on 20th April 1990, and despite of having received the NDC certificate, have not remitted the amount to the petitioner, which was wrongly withheld by their since 1990, which was due to be paid to the petitioner, otherwise after attainment of his age of superannuation in 31st March 1990. 16. Looking to the age of the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, are hereby directed to remit the entire pledged NDC principal amount to the petitioner along with the interest payable on it at the present prevailing bank rate till the date of the actual payment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition stand allowed, subject to the above observations.