IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14192 of 2006 MD.FAIYAZUL HAQUE, Son of Late Md. Zakaria, Resident of Village / Mohalla – Sain, P.S. - Dhanarua, District – Patna. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna. 5. The Headmaster, Government High School Hazarat Sai, Dhanarua, Patna. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- Respondents ----------- 2 5/5/2011 Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra who was assisted by Sri Nurul Hoda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 22, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri S.M. Ehtesham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accountant General, Bihar. It is a glaring case of recalcitrant approach of the Govt. officials towards retired persons. The petitioner, who retired long back on 31.05.1999 as 'Assistant Teacher' from the Govt. High School, Hazarat Sai, Dhanarua, Patna, has not yet received his final pension. The writ petition was filed in the year 2006. From the writ petition it appears that number of representations were filed by the petitioner demanding payment of his final pension but no notice was taken by the authority concerned. Even after filing of the writ petition, it appears that authorities were sitting tight over the matter. When the case was to be taken up, the respondents i.e. respondent no. 4/District Education Officer, Patna, has come out 2 with an affidavit and assurance, that within one month, everything will be done as if the respondent no. 4 was going to oblige either the petitioner or the court. The respondent no. 4 completely failed to appreciate that respondents were duty bond to clear all the retiral dues of a retired Government servant. The petitioner retired in 1999 and in 2011 a stand has been taken that within one month everything will be done. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that till date he is getting only provisional pension and full gratuity amount has also not been paid, only provisional gratuity amount has been paid. In this case, a detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Accountant General. On perusal of the same it is evident that Accountant General had taken all steps but due to recalcitrant approach of the State officials same has not been finalised. In view of stand taken by respondent no. 4 in paragraph no. 9 of its counter affidavit, it is desirable to direct the respondent State particularly, respondent no. 4, to take all steps to sanction final pension within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to get interest on remaining 10% amount of pension and gratuity from the date of his retirement. The amount of interest which is to be paid to the petitioner shall be recovered from the officer/employee responsible for delay in finalising the pension. So far as other retiral dues are concerned, it has been admitted by 3 learned counsel for the petitioner, that all other dues have already been cleared. The respondent no. 6, is directed to issue authorisation within two weeks from from the date of receipt of sanction from the State authority. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the petitioner was constrained to pursue the matter for such a long time, it is desirable to impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the State for delaying the matter. The amount of cost should be realised from the officer/employee responsible for the delay. With above observation and direction the writ stands allowed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)