The court held that the respondents were responsible for the delay in the payment of the dues and that they were liable to pay interest on the dues.

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.

1. -this writ petition has been filed by the widow of Barrister Ram, who died in harness on 14-6-1974 while posted at Vijaipur block in the district of Gopalganj, seeking a direction to the respondents pay the family pension month to month along with other dues, for which she is entitled after the sad demise of her husband besides other legal dues, for which her husband was entitled and not paid.

2. The petitioner being mehtar by caste is member of the scheduled caste. It is stated that her husband was put under suspension sometime in the year 1970-71 when he was working as a circle Inspector under the State Service. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, after conclusion of which his suspension was revoked, but he was demoted to the post of a karam-chari. Thereafter he joined as Karam-chari at Vijaipur Block, where, after serving about a year, he died in harness on 14-6-1974. It is claimed that the petitioner met the respondents on a number of occasions and that she was assured of the payment, which remained to be paid. but that has not been paid so far. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is an illiterate old widow facing acute hardships on account of non-payment of the family pension and other legal dues of her late husband. She being not aware of all the dues payable to her late husband seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents to file statements in this regard as to the payments admissible to her late husband.

3. Despite service of two copies of the writ-petition on the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Bihar and its officers, namely, the district Magistrate, Gopalganj and the circle Office, Vijaipur Block (respondent Nos.3 and 4) as also on the learned standing Counsel appearing for the Advocate-General, Bihar on 3.5.1994, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State and its officers. By order dated 19.12.95 four weeks time was granted to the learned Counsel for the State to file counter affidavit to be affirmed by the district Magistrate, Gopalganj. Despite all these. no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and its officers. Learned J. C. to G. P. I, states that despite instructions being sought from the respondents no instruction has been received from them so far.

4. However, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the accountant-General, Bihar (respondent No.2 ). In the said counter affidavit it is stated that in the absence of the details in the writ petition of reference of pension papers along with service book and sanction order for family pension and gratuity made to the office of the said respondent, the same could not be traced out. Hence letters have been sent to the concerned authority of the State government vide letter No. Pen-16-194, dated 16-6-1994 and a reminder thereto also on 15-7-1994. In reply to the same the Establishment Dy. Collector, gopalganj vide letter No.127 dated 12-8-1994 sent a letter of circle Officer, vijaipur that pension paper could not be submitted in absence of Service Book and required papers. It is further stated that the office of the Accountant-General has again requested the department vide letter No. Pen-16-384, dated 20-10-1994 and subsequent reminder letter No. Pen-16-434, dated 6-10-94 to send the pension papers along with sanction order. True copies of the letters have been annexed as Annexures A, B, C. D and E, respectively to the counter-affidavit. Similarly, it is stated that in absence of General provident Fund Account No. in the writ application, the position could not be checked in the office of the said respondent. Hence, the G. P. F. Account No. was also called for vide letter No. Fd-GL-117 dated 15-6-1994 and in reply, the circle Officer, Vijaipur, vide his letter no.817 dated 5-8-1994 intimated that no. G. P. F. Account number was allotted to the late husband of the petitioner.

5. I may re-iterate here that the husband of the pet