IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3448 of 2006 AYODHYA NATH RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 22.4.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Leave Reserve Officer with effect from 31.12.1999. He had preferred C.W.J.C. No.6052 of 2002 for payment of his retiral dues which was disposed of by order dated 5.12.2002 directing the authorities of the State to ensure payment of the dues. Non-compliance of the direction of this Court, led to the filing of a contempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.2196 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 9.2.2005 (Annexure-2) giving liberty to the petitioner for raising his claim for statutory interest on delayed payment. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this court, the petitioner raised his claim before the authorities concerned and which has been rejected vide memo dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Agriculture Production Commissioner placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition on grounds that the petitioner himself was responsible for delayed submission of his pension papers and thus, not entitled for statutory interest. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the resolution of the Finance Department dated 31.7.1980 placed at Annexure-4 series, submits that it was the responsibility of the head of the department to process the pension papers of the petitioner at least two years prior to his retirement and having failed to do so, he can not be held responsible for the same and be denied the statutory interest on that pretext. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Bench decision of this court reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 494 (Bhupendra Nath Bariar vs. The State of Bihar and others) in which this court taking into consideration the stipulations contained in memo no.Pen-1032/67-8739 dated 13.7.1967, was pleased to hold that filing of the formal application by the government servant is dispensed with and the duty is cast on the Head of the department in case of the Gazetted Officer and head of office, in case of non gazetted employees to complete the formalities for processing the claim of a retired government employee. The said position has been reiterated in the resolution of the Finance Department dated 31.7.1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in 3 this back-ground and relying upon the State government decision contained in memo no.36-2-1- 46/79/3155 dated 7.11.1981, submits that the petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on the belated payment(s). He further submits that although the petitioner has received amounts of Rs.2,63,570/ on 10.10.2002 and Rs.29,428/- in January, 2004 towards the provident fund amount, he is entitled to certain further amount as detailed in Annexure-7-series. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the petitioner himself had submitted pension papers belatedly, hence, he is not entitled to interest thereon. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, undoutedly the responsibility has been cast upon the head of the department/head of the office in processing the pension claim of the retiring employees and which process is to start at least two years back. But then there is a simultaneous responsibility cast upon the retiring employee to submit the pension papers and in this context the implication of rule 189 of the Bihar Pension Rules 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘rules’) also is to be taken note of. In no uncertain term the rule mandates that the government servant concerned shall be submitting a formal application for pension at least 18 months in advance of his actual or anticipated retirement. The note appended to the said Rule, further clarifies that the same has been intended to ensure that the government servants may not retire under misapprehension that he is free from filing the pension papers. Thus, it is only in the circumstances where pre-requisites as set out in rule 189 stands satisfied, that the circular dated 7.11.1981 prescribing interest, as taken note above, comes into play and the employee becomes entitled for interest from the date of retirement until payment of the pension amount. In so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, admittedly he superannuated on 31.12.1999 and submitted his pension papers subsequently on 15.1.2000. Following the 18 months rule, the period expires on 15.6.2001. The petitioner, in the statement enclosed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition, has mentioned 5 that he received his pension on 7.2.2002 and gratuity on 12.2.2002. Hence, following the circular of 1981 in the back drop of rule 189, the petitioner would be entitled to interest prescribed thereunder with effect from 15.6.2001 up to 7.2.2002 in case of pension and up to 12.2.2002 in case of the gratuity amount. In so far as the payment of provident fund of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the respondent no.5 the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna, with supportive documents and calculative details and who may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Needless to add that if the petitioner has made out any case for further amount(s), the same should be paid to him with up to date interest. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)