IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7818 of 2011 GADADHAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAKSHMAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHURAPUR, P.O. BAKARPUR JAGAT, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF IDNAI, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, JUDGES COURT ROAD, ANTA GHAT, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALYANPUR BRANCH, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 9.5.2011. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mukund Jee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/State Bank of India. In the present case, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner for directing the Bank official to credit the revise pension amount in his account, which was authorized by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and thereafter, it was sent by the Treasury Officer, Motihari to the State Bank of India, Kalyanpur Branch, East Champaran, Motihari. It was submitted that despite receipt of pension payment order from the Treasury Officer, the Bank official were sitting tight over the matter 2 in crediting the same in the account of the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to rush to this Court. On 3.5.2011, when the case was taken up, Shri Mukund Jee, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank had sought adjournment for seeking instruction. Today, at the time of hearing, Shri Mukund Jee, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submitted that he has received instruction that the revised pension amount has already been transmitted to the account of the petitioner. It was submitted that due to technical fault, delay had occurred in crediting the amount and there were no intentional latches on the part of the Bank. Be that as it may, fact remains that payment order from the Treasury Officer was received in the Bank in the month of November,2010 itself. Whatsoever reasons may be, the fact remains that the delay has occurred in crediting the amount in the account of the petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled 3 to get interest on the prevailing Bank rate on delayed payment. The court is also of the opinion that since delay has occurred, without the fault of the petitioner, he obviously would be entitled to get interest on delayed payment. Accordingly, the respondent/Bank is directed to make payment of interest at the rate of interest applicable in the Saving Account from the date of receipt of the payment order from the Treasury Office in the Bank till the transfer of the amount into the account of the petitioner. The interest amount should be paid within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. The respondent no.2/The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna shall be entitled to recover the interest amount from the official/employee responsible for delay. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)