ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, 'BPSC') is in appeal against the order dated 19th June 2012 passed in WP(S) No.2352 of 2005 by which the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for delay of 21 years in payment of a part of post-retiral benefits to the writ petitioner who is the respondent No.1 before us. 2. By an order dated 13th February 2013, the operation of the writ Court's order was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. The respondent No.1 superannuated from service with effect from 1st February 1984 and a part of the pensionary benefits were paid to him pursuant to the direction issued in CWJC No. 522 of 1995(R). The respondents therein were directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the payment due and payable to the respondent No.1 with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 4. The leaned writ Court in CWJC No. 522 of 1995(R) has held as under: “In view aforesaid facts and circumstances. this Court considers it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 12% to the Petitioner on his pensionary dues for the period November, 1991 to July 1994 he had received i.e. Rs.49,455/- and Rs. 22,452/-. He would also be entitled to costs for enforced litigation which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). The amounts must be paid to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Application is allowed. There Shall however be no order as to costs.” 5. The order dated 10th September 2003 passed in CWJC No. 522 of 1995(R) was affirmed in LPA No. 731 of 2003 vide order dated 31st August 2004 holding as under: “In the circumstances, the Single Judge awarded interest and cost in favour of the first respondent (writ petitioner). We find no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. no. 522 of 1995(R) There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed.” 6. Assailing the order passed in WP(S) No.2352 of 2005, Mr. We find no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. no. 522 of 1995(R) There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed.” 6. Assailing the order passed in WP(S) No.2352 of 2005, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, the learned counsel for BPSC submits that for the latches on the part of the respondents who were parties before the writ Court, BPSC has been saddled with cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.1 as compensation. The submission made on behalf of the appellant- BPSC is that without adjudicating mistake, if any, committed by the appellant who was not made a party in CWJC No. 522 of 1995(R) the writ Court ought not to have inflicted cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid as compensation to the respondent No.1. 7. Mr. Praful Jojo, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would however submit that there is no denial that a part of the post-retiral benefits accrued to the respondent No.1 was paid to him after delay of 21 years and, therefore, the issue did not require any further inquiry in this regard. Supporting the order passed in WP(S) No.2352 of 2005, Mr. Praful Jojo, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that delay in payment of post-retiral benefits has been seen by the legislature harshly and, therefore, under the Payment of Gratuity Act there is a provision of payment of interest beyond the time provided under the statute. 8. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, the learned counsel who appears for the Office of the Accountant General states that as and when records with a recommendation for payment of post-retiral dues to the respondent No.1 were received, necessary directions were passed by the respondent-authority. 9. A glance at the writ Court's order would reveal that during pendency of the writ petition it was brought to the knowledge of the Court that the amount of leave encashment, GPF and Group Insurance were paid to the respondent No.1 by 2007 and nothing remained to be paid to him. 9. A glance at the writ Court's order would reveal that during pendency of the writ petition it was brought to the knowledge of the Court that the amount of leave encashment, GPF and Group Insurance were paid to the respondent No.1 by 2007 and nothing remained to be paid to him. The discussion in this regard by the writ Court is in the following terms: “There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the Bihar Public Service Commission has initiated any enquiry to find out the person for whose fault, papers/ documents of the petitioner went missing in the office of the Commission thereby depriving the petitioner from the post retirement benefits. This is a shocking case where a public servant was deprived from the post retirement benefits for a long 21 years. This Court cannot shut the eyes for the lapses on the part of the Commission and the State Government. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission to initiate inquiry in the matter and fix responsibility on the officer/ official for whose fault, papers/documents of the petitioner went missing, depriving the petitioner from the post retirement benefits. However, the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna for whose fault, the petitioner was deprived from getting the post retirement benefit in time, shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) as compensation to the petitioner within one month from today. It is made clear that the Bihar Public Service Commission may recover the aforesaid compensation amount from the person who is found guilty after enquiry.” 10. A glance at the aforesaid reasoning given by the writ Court reveals that, except observing that the BPSC was at fault, the writ Court did not advert to the previous proceeding in CWJC No. 522 of 1995(R) in which interest at the rate of 12% and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- were already awarded to the respondent No.1 and while so in a second proceeding further cost or compensation could not have been awarded to the respondent No.1. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find serious infirmity in the order dated 19th June 2012 passed in WP(S) No.2352 of 2005 and it is, accordingly, set-aside. 12. LPA No. 287 of 2012 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.