IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14521 of 2005 PURENDRA NARAIN VERMA s/o late Suresh Chandra Prasad Verma, resident of Mohalla Chitra Gupta Nagar (Pakharia ) P.S. Begusarai Town, District- Begusarai. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Director, primary Education, Bihar. 2. The Director, Administration, H.R.D. Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar , Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Gaya, Bihar. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ----------- 7 3.12.2010 This case has been brought under the heading “ To Be Mentioned” at the instance of learned counsel for Accountant General to correct certain error that has been crept in final order. He rightly points out that 5th Pay Revision Commission’s recommendation was effective from 1.4.1997 and not 1.1.1986, as mentioned in the order. He then rightly points out that the petitioner had retired before that date, the gratuity was not to be paid on revised pay scale. He further points out that this Court has ordered payment of 12 % per year compensation for delayed payment of pensionary dues at the revised pay scale. He points out that liability to pay is on the State and only when it is sanctioned, Accountant General can make the payment and as such the interest also has to be first sanctioned for payment by the State. Considering the aforesaid, I think it appropriate to modify the order, as passed on 1.12.2010, in the present case. The order dated 1.12.2010 is recalled and order noted would read as under- 2 The petitioner retired as Range Education Officer, Sherghati, Gaya on 31.12.1996. This writ application is for a direction to the respondents including the Accountant General for payment of pension and gratuity and other re-tiral benefits at the revised pay scale as per the Vth Pay Commission’s recommendation, which became effective from 1.4.1997. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well by the Accountant General wherein it is now stated that upon receipt of recommendation from the State, the office of the Accountant General has revised the pension with effect from 1.4.1997. Petitioner accepts the same but points out that so far as gratuity is concerned, everyone has kept mum. In my view, his gratuity became payable on 31.12.1996 prior to effective date for implementation of Vth Pay Revision recommendation, which was 1.4.1997. The gratuity paid would be correct and needs no revision. I accordingly direct the Accountant General to ensure payment of arrears of pension as consequence of revision within a period of one month to the account of the petitioner. As this revision ought to have been done over a decade and a half but not having done, petitioner was forced to come this Court uselessly .For this inordinate delay, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest in the amount of delayed payment of pension at the rate of 12 % per year till payment is made. The State Government would accordingly sanction payment within a period of one month and thereafter the Accountant General 3 would ensure that it is paid to the petitioner within one month. It would be open to the State to recover the interest amount from the person/persons responsible for this inordinate delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)