JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader 26 for the State; Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for Employees' Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as the 'EPFO') and Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank').

2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

".....for issuance of appropriate writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities for payment of pension for the period July 2000 to September 2010 and penal interest of 12% which may be calculated from the date the amount fell due to the actual date of payment forth with along with exemplary cost for not making payment even after more than 9 years."

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the original petitioner (Fekna Devi), after the death of her husband (Shiv Pujan Ram) on 22.02.2008, upon superannuation on 30.06.2000, approached the EPFO for payment of due pension of her late husband and her family pension, by filing an application through her lawyer under the Right to Information Act, and received reply that the EPFO had already sent advice and scroll giving details to the Bank on 29.06.2011 for payment of Rs. 32,874/- pension in the husband's account from 01.07.2000 to 22.02.2008 and also Rs. 14,070/- for payment in her account. Fekna Devi having died during the pendency of the writ petitioner has been substituted by her heirs, the present petitioners.

4. Finally, during the pendency of this application, payment has been made for the period in question. As the same has been done after what can only be termed an exorbitant delay, and without any fault on the part of the original petitioner, the Court had undertaken a lengthy exercise and had called upon the EPFO and the Bank to file affidavits to (i) bring on record, and; (ii) to clarify certain facts. Many affidavits have been filed; however, the full picture is yet to unravel and has not been made clear by the Bank. The plea is that all records are not available.

5. In the aforesaid background, the Court has proceeded to hear the matter finally and has relied upon the materials available on record, coupled with the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that way back, in the year 2011 itself, the EPFO had sent a scroll to the Bank for making payment to the original petitioner and various other persons. On this, the stand of the Bank is that the account number of the original petitioner was not mentioned and further, that the account number of the EPFO itself was mentioned resulting in a situation where the money, which was to be paid into the account of the petitioner, remained in the account of the EPFO.

7. Learned counsel for the EPFO submitted that with regard to twelve persons, there was human error, but the Bank never reverted to the EPFO for any clarification and, thus, there is no laches on the part of the EPFO.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that payments have been made to persons, who were similarly situated by the Bank on the basis of the same scroll, but to the original petitioner, the same was not made.

9. On this specific point, learned counsel for the Bank admitted that with regard to six persons, payments were made, but that was when the Bank was made aware of such grievance of the said six persons and in consultation with the EPFO, the payments were made. However, with regard to the original petitioner, no such exercise was undertaken.

10. When the Court called upon learned counsel for the Bank to place on record the details with regard to when such clarification was actually sought by the Bank and when such clarification was actually provided by the EPFO, to enable it to make payments to the afore-stated six similarly situated persons, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the records are not avai