JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 504 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has passed the order commanding upon the respondent/writ petitioner to pay interest @ 8% per annum from 01.01.2015 till the date of actual payment of amount in respect of the dues mentioned at sl. Nos.3 to 7 since the amount has been paid belatedly. 2. The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder: It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that he superannuated from service on 31.01.2014, but, the gratuity amount has been disbursed only on 10.05.2019; amount towards arrears of pension has been paid on 18.02.2020; encashment of unutilized leave was disbursed on 30.05.2019; amount towards arrears on account of grant of first A.C.P. was paid on 27.03.2019 and; amount towards arrears on account of second A.C.P. was paid on 03.05.2019. Therefore, the grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner is that there was delay of about 5 to 6 years in disbursement of the amount, as such, he is entitled to receive interest of the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the entire retiral dues has been paid, however, same has been paid at a belated stage. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the amount as referred at sl. Nos. 3 to 7 of the Tabular Chart as under paragraph-4 of the impugned order, since has been paid belatedly, therefore, order has been passed directing the respondents to pay interest @ 8 % per annum from 01.01.2015 till the date of actual payment of the amount in respect of the dues mentioned at sl. Nos.3 to 7 of the said chart. The same is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. Nos.3 to 7 of the said chart. The same is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have inflicted interest to be paid in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner since the retiral benefit has already been paid but the same having not been considered by the learned Single Judge, direction has been passed to pay interest @ 8% per annum, as such, according to her, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. She further submits by taking the plea as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that some service period, i.e., of 141 days, has not been regularized, therefore, delay has occurred. 5. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Accountant General has submitted by referring to the Circular issued by the State Government on 07.11.1981 which stipulates about making payment of the retiral dues if paid belatedly along with interest @ 5% per annum. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the Accountant General, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. This Court, considering the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order impugned, has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge after considering the fact that the retiral dues has already been paid but some of the amount, i.e., referred at sl. Nos.3 to 7 of the paragraph-4 of the order impugned since has been paid belatedly, therefore, the respondents were directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum from 01.01.2015 till the date of actual payment of amount in respect of the dues mentioned at sl. Nos.3 to 7 in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner. The aforesaid tabular chart is being reproduced as under : Sl. no. Nos.3 to 7 in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner. The aforesaid tabular chart is being reproduced as under : Sl. no. Description Bill No. Date Amount 1 GPF 84/14-15 17.12.2014 5,92,943.00 2 GIS 83/14-15 17.12.2014 1,60,461.00 3 Arrears due to grant of 1st A.C.P. 107/18-19 27.03.2019 1,62,629.00 4 Arrears due to grant of 2nd A.C.P. 3/19-20 03.05.2019 5,16,957.00 5 Encashment of unutilized earned leave 10-19-20 30.05.2019 5,07,000.00 6 Gratuity GPO No.121995307 11.11.2019 7,47,825.00 7 Arrears of pension 18.02.2020 8. The contention has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest can only be imposed, if there is delay attributable to the State but according to her, herein, there is no delay on the part of the State, as such, the interest which has been imposed to be paid in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner to the extent of 8% per annum could not have been inflicted. 9. This Court in view of such submission, is required to see as to whether the amount as referred at Sl. Nos.3 to 7 has actually been paid within due date or belatedly and if has been paid belatedly, then due to whose fault? 10. The admitted fact herein as per the State appellant that the arrears due to the grant of first A.C.P. was sanctioned but paid on 27.03.2019 even though the respondent/writ petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2014 . It cannot be disputed that if an employee is entitled for upgradation of pay-scale under first A.C.P. (both), the same is required to be given while the public servant is in service, i.e., on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service as per the Resolution dated 14.08.2002. Admittedly herein, the respondent/writ petitioner retired on 31.01.2014 but the benefits accrued to him under the First Assured Career Progression Scheme as also Second Assured Career Progression Scheme has been paid to the tune of Rs.1,62,629.00 and Rs.5,16,957.00 only on 27.03.2019 and 03.05.2019 respectively, i.e., after about more than five years from the date of superannuation of the respondent/writ petitioner. Likewise, the encashment of unutilized earned leave has been paid in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner on 30.05.2019. 11. Likewise, the encashment of unutilized earned leave has been paid in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner on 30.05.2019. 11. The action of the concerned respondents cannot be said to be appropriate in disbursing the amount of unutilized earned leave after more than five years after the date of superannuation, reason being that the unutilized earned leave as per the provision of law is required to be paid the day when the public servant superannuates from service but that is not the case herein. Likewise, the amount of gratuity and the arrears of pension have been paid on 11.11.2019 and 18.02.2020 respectively, i.e, after more than five to six years from the date of superannuation. 12. The position of law as per the pension rule applicable to the respondent/writ petitioner probates that gratuity since includes under pension as per the Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Pension Rule, the same is to be paid by the State immediately on the day of superannuation but the same has been paid belatedly, i.e., after five and a half years. 13. Learned counsel for the State has submitted by taking the plea as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that some service period, i.e., of 141 days has not been regularized, therefore, delay has been occurred but we are not in agreement with such submission taking into consideration the submission made at pargraph-9 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 to the writ petition dated 26.06.2019 wherein it has been stated that the pay-slip has been issued in favour of the writ petitioner on 15.10.2015 fixing his pay from 30.12.2011, i.e., the date of his taking charge at Kolebira Range. Further, the period from 11.08.2011 to 29.12.2011 could not be regularized and the period termed as PNR. Subsequently the period from 11.08.2011 to 29.12.2011 (total 141 days) has been regularized by Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no.1368 dated 12.04.2019. 14. It is not acceptable to this Court reason being that the State Government if has taken decision for regularizing 141 days, i.e., period from 11.08.2011 to 29.12.2011 vide letter no.1368 dated 12.04.2019, the question arises why such decision has not been taken while the writ petitioner was in service. 14. It is not acceptable to this Court reason being that the State Government if has taken decision for regularizing 141 days, i.e., period from 11.08.2011 to 29.12.2011 vide letter no.1368 dated 12.04.2019, the question arises why such decision has not been taken while the writ petitioner was in service. There is no explanation to that effect, as such, according to the considered view of this Court, taking such decision of regularizing after five years from the date of superannuation, will be said to be delay attributable to the appellant/respondent. 15. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the disbursement of the amount belatedly, has held the writ petitioner entitled for interest @ 8 % per annum from 01.01.2015 till the date of actual payment of the amount in respect of the dues mentioned at sl. Nos.3 to 7 of the chart under paragraph-4 of the impugned order. 16. It requires to refer herein that the State Government has itself issued a Circular on 07.11.1981 wherein the decision has been taken for payment of interest on delayed payment of all amounts pension (including family pension and death-cum-retiral gratuity) @ 5% per annum and therefore, once the State Government has taken decision to that effect, it is not available for the State Government to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge after the interest having been directed to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner. It is also not the case of the State that the writ petitioner has submitted the pension form belatedly since no averment to that effect has been made. 17. The only question is required to be seen is that while imposing the interest, as to whether the delay is attributable to the State Government or not and if the delay is attributable to the State Government, certainly, the pensioner is entitled to get the interest. Herein, the amount has been paid belatedly without any fault on the part of the writ petitioner as discussed hereinabove, as such, if the learned Single Judge has imposed the interest, the same, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be faulted with. 18. Herein, the amount has been paid belatedly without any fault on the part of the writ petitioner as discussed hereinabove, as such, if the learned Single Judge has imposed the interest, the same, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be faulted with. 18. Reference of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of the given fact is required to be given, i.e., in Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 687 wherein a direction has been passed upon the respondents to pay retiral benefits along with simple interest @ 18% with effect from the date of retirement till the date of payment. 19. This Court has also passed an order relying upon the aforesaid judgment in L.P.A. No. 506 of 2018 (Parmeshwar Sah vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) disposed of on 22.06.2020 wherein considering the delay caused on the part of the State in disbursal of the retiral amount has imposed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of its payment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “………. This Court is very much concerned for the laches committed on the part of the authority of the State of Jharkhand, the public exchequer may not suffer but simultaneously, if the delay has been caused, the employee cannot be allowed to suffer and therefore, this Court hereby directs to disburse the amount of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of its payment over the amount of leave encashment, group insurance and the difference of dearness allowance to be paid to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.” 20. This Court, in the entirety of facts and circumstances and as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.