IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12536 of 2011 Ram Ekbal Choubey, S/o Late Mahadeo Choubey, resident of Mohalla Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Charitar Van, Police Station, Town, P.S and District Buxar. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan Branch, Patna. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Buxar. 5. The Treasury Officer, Buxar. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 7. 9.9.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to S.C.3, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 5/State of Bihar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/Accountant General and Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4/State Bank of India. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay revised/enhanced retiral benefits in the light of P.P.O. issued by the office of Accountant General. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after revision of the pension, authorization was issued by the Accountant General and it was addressed to the Treasury Officer, Buxar vide Annexure-1 to 2 the writ petition. Despite the fact that authorization was issued long back, the amount after revision was not credited to the account of the petitioner, which was lying in the Branch of State Bank of India, Buxar. In this case, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Treasury Officer, Buxar, wherein it has been stated that on 10.11.2010, Treasury Officer, Buxar had received authority slip from the office of Accountant General and immediately on the next date on 11.11.2010, he had transmitted the same to the State Bank of India for its credit to the account of the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4/State Bank of India, on instruction, informs the court that on 29.8.2011, finally in the light of authorization revised amount of retiral dues has already been credited to the petitioner’s account. No plausible explanation has been given by the Bank as to how delay has occurred in crediting the said amount to the account of the petitioner. In view of the fact that in the 3 light of authorization issued by the Accountant General and communication made by respondent no.5/Treasury Officer, Buxar, the revised amount of retiral dues has already been credited to the account of the petitioner, there is no need to further keep the matter pending. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. While disposing of the writ petition, it is desirable to direct respondent nos.3 and 4 to calculate interest applicable on the Saving Account on the amount of retiral dues on revision as per authorization and communication by the Treasury Officer from the date of receipt of communication in the Bank till the date of crediting the said amount to the petitioner’s account. The respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to calculate and pay interest on delayed transfer of the revised retiral amount to the account of the petitioner. The Bank shall be at liberty to recover the interest amount, which is to be paid to the petitioner from the pocket of concerned officer/employee of the State Bank of India responsible for 4 delay in transmitting the amount to the account of the petitioner. The amount of interest must be paid within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)