IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.344 of 2009 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary to Government in the department of Labour, Employment and Training, New Secretariat, Patna. 3.The Director Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road Patna. Versus 1.CHANDRIKA MISHRA Son of late Ramhit Mishra, resident of village Manikpura, P.S. Baniepur, District Saran. 2.The Accountant General, bihar Virchand Patel Path, Patna. ----------- 6 19/1/2010 I.A. No.1934/2009. This is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in preferring the appeal. Before issuing notice of this application we thought it apposite to hear learned counsel for the State on merits of the case. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State calling in question the sustainability of order dated 1.9.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1683 of 2001. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the State that while passing the order 2 dated 1.9.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 1683 of 2001 the learned Single Judge has committed great error by quashing the charges leveled against the original writ petitioner and further in granting the benefit of full pension with 15% interest on the amount of 10% pension which have been illegally withheld. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the order of learned Single Judge it is perceivable that the learned Judge has perused the enquiry report and recorded a categorical findings that the delinquent officer has been exonerated and therefore order of punishment was arbitrary and non-est in law. When the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the delinquent and nothing has been brought on the record that the disciplinary authority after differing with the report had issued a show cause notice which is required under law as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra’ reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84, the order of punishment cannot 3 be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge in granting interest at the rate of 15% on the 10% pension. We are of the considered opinion that there is no justification in interfering with the same as in the opinion of this Court the employer is liable to pay interest to the erstwhile employee on the delayed payment of pension. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and therefore there is no need to issue notice on the limitation petition. Accordingly, the application for limitation is rejected and consequently the appeal is also dismissed. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)