JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) I.A. No.8427 of 2024 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 118 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, I.A.No.8427 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 118 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.434 of 2024 Prayer 5. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the part of order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5913 of 2023, wherein the prayer of the interest upon the delayed payment pension has been granted but the interest on the delayed payment of other heads of retiral benefits, have been denied. 6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:- 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was lastly posted as Asst. Engineer (Civil), in Waterways Division, Medninagar, Palamau. The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Medninagar vide letter no.488 dated 29.06.2017 directed the petitioner to hand over his charge. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner handed over the charge on 30.06.2017. The writ petitioner was superannuated on 30.06.2017. After superannuation, the petitioner has submitted his pension paper and other required relevant papers to release all retiral dues. 8. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he had given many representation to the respondents to release the amount of GPF, Leave Encashment, Gratuity & pension but the same was not released and after lapse of about two years, the same was released on 01.10.2018, 24.09.2018, 12.07.2019 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that Rs.5000/- was deducted from his Gratuity without any sufficient reason. 9. The petitioner has given representation to the respondents to pay the interest of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Pension but no action has been taken. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that Rs.5000/- was deducted from his Gratuity without any sufficient reason. 9. The petitioner has given representation to the respondents to pay the interest of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Pension but no action has been taken. 10. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.6756 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2020 directing the petitioner to file fresh representation raising all the grievances before the competent authority. 11. As per the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has move before the authority but no step has been taken regarding the interest of delayed payment. 12. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.272 of 2022 which was dropped by vide order dated 23.06.2023 as reasoned order has even passed by the respondent vide letter no.418 dated 30.04.2020, as per which, the payment of interest to the petitioner for delayed payment of retiral dues, has been denied. 13. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred above that the petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. The writ petitioner has submitted the pension form but neither the pension nor the gratuity or leave encashment or GPF has been paid. 14. The writ petitioner has requested the authority repeatedly, but the grievances of the writ petitioner have not been redressed thereafter in the year, 2019, the ritral benefits under different heads has been paid but without any interest. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has to rush to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6756 of 2019, based upon that, the authority has passed reasoned order on 30.04.2020. 15. The decision has been taken so far as the amount of GPF is concerned that the amount since has already been paid on 01.10.2018 and as such, he is not entitled for the interest. So far as the amount of leave encashment and gratuity are concerned, the same reason has been assigned. 16. The writ petitioner has approached to this Court by challenging the aforesaid order by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5913 of 2023. 17. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, has directed the authority to pay the statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, so far as the delayed payment of pension is concerned. The writ petitioner has approached to this Court by challenging the aforesaid order by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5913 of 2023. 17. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, has directed the authority to pay the statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, so far as the delayed payment of pension is concerned. But, no direction has been passed for payment of interest over the amount of GPF or the gratuity or the leave encashment, therefore, the present appeal. 18. Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error, due to the reason that when the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that there is delay in making payment of the pension and that is the reason, while allowing the writ petition, the interest at the rate of 6 per cent for delayed payment of pension has been directed to be paid which means that the learned Single Judge was also of the view that there was delay in making payment of pension which was attributable to the State and therefore, not passing any order with respect to the interest over the amount of GPF or the Gratuity or the Leave Encashment, cannot be said to be just and proper. 19. It has been contended by referring to the decision taken by the authority as appended as Annexure-8, wherefrom it is evident that the appellant although has retired from service on 30.06.2017 but the delay which is attributable to the State whether it is amount pertaining to GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity. 20. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order impugned, therefore, needs to be fortified by holding the writ petitioner entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for delayed payment of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity. 21. Mr. 20. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order impugned, therefore, needs to be fortified by holding the writ petitioner entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for delayed payment of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity. 21. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III appearing for the respondent-State, while defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has submitted that the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the interest amount over the amount of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity, as would be evident from the reasoned order which is speaking one in which the authorities have justified that why the writ petitioner is not entitled for the interest upon the amount of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity. 22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the reasoned order dated 30.04.2020. 23. The question which has been raised on behalf of the appellant that when the writ petitioner has been held entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on account of delayed payment of pension/arrears of pension, then, in no stretch of imagination, why the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the interest over the amount of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity. 24. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein that the pension and gratuity have been defined under Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, wherein, it has been defined that the gratuity is the part of the pension, for ready reference, Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, is being referred as under:- “27.Pension includes a gratuity.” 25. The admitted fact herein is that the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion by holding the writ petitioner entitled for interest at the 6 per cent per annum for delayed payment of pension/arrears of pension, meaning thereby, the learned Single Judge has found the attributability of delay upon the State and that is the reason, the writ petitioner has been held entitle for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum over the amount of pension/arrears of pension but not passing any order on the amount of gratuity, even though, the pension includes gratuity as per Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, hence, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be not entitled for the amount of interest over the amount of gratuity. Moreover, the reasoned order also reflects the attributability of delay which has been taken note by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 26. So far as the amount of GPF and Leave Encashment are concerned, the reference of the reasoned order will clarify that the writ petitioner has been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2017 but the file was processed by the authority vide letter no.722 dated 15.09.2017 and again a reminder was issued vide letter no.333 dated 12.06.2018 and only thereafter, the amount of GPF was paid in favour of the writ petitioner on 01.10.2018, therefore, the delay is apparent from the conduct of the State authority. 27. GPF Rules is very explicit that if any delay is being caused by the State authority, the concerned public servant will be entitled to get the interest over the delayed payment of the gratuity. 28. Further, so far as the leave encashment amount is concerned, similar is the position herein also that even after the retirement of the writ petitioner from service w.e.f. 30.06.2017, amount under the leave encashment had been paid on 24.09.2018. 29. The law is well settled regarding the interest to be paid in favour of the public servant and as per the settled position of law that if delay is attributable to the State, then the public servant is entitled for the amount of interest over the respective heads. 30. 29. The law is well settled regarding the interest to be paid in favour of the public servant and as per the settled position of law that if delay is attributable to the State, then the public servant is entitled for the amount of interest over the respective heads. 30. Further, Law is well settled so far as the issue of payment of interest is concerned i.e. State has failed in disbursing the amount then attributability will be upon the State and in that view of the matter, the State will have to compensate the litigant concerned by making payment of interest. However, the matter would have been different if the State would be in a position to establish the fact that delay is not attributable to the State, rather, it is attributable to the concerned litigant. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 , has observed that 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 itself. Further, it has been ordered in the aforesaid judgment that if there is any delay showing no reason of justification for years together a direction has been passed directing the respondent to pay the retiral benefits along with the simple interest with effect from the date ofretirement till the date of payment. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:- “3. 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. 4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31-8-1997 till the date of payments.” 32. 4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31-8-1997 till the date of payments.” 32. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) through legal representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, (2014) 8 SCC 894 while taking note of the Judgment passed in the case of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 has been pleased to direct for making payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity on the ground of delay of making payment of the retiral dues. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:- “6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred [ (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] to supra.---” 33. This Court, in view of the aforesaid settled position of law and considering the fact as would be evident from perusal of the reasoned order dated 30.04.2020, wherefrom, it is evident that the writ petitioner even though has retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2017 but the amount of GPF was paid on 01.10.2018, the amount of leave encashment was paid on 24.09.2018 and the amount of gratuity was paid on 12.07.2019. 34. 34. The aforesaid aspect of the matter, although, has been considered by the learned Single Judge which led the learned Single Judge in holding the writ petitioner entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for delayed payment of pension/arrears of pension in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No.399 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12553 of 2020)]. 35. Therefore, similar view ought to have been taken by the learned Single Judge with respect to amount of GPF or the Leave Encashment or the Gratuity, having not done so, as such, this Court is of the view that whatever reason has been assigned by the authority in the order holding the writ petitioner disentitled, the same needs to be interfered with. 36. Accordingly, the order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the respondent-authority is hereby quashed and set aside. 37. The writ petitioner is held entitled for the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum over the delayed payment of amount of GPF, the Leave Encashment and the Gratuity. 38. The concerned authorities are directed to disburse the interest amount within the period of three months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 39. Accordingly, the order dated 29.02.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.5913 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge is modified. 40. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction.