Vishwanatha Shetty, J.:—

The appellants in this appeal have called in question the correctness of the order dated 23rd August 2001 made in W.P No. 1294/1999 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The facts in brief may be stated as hereunder:

The third respondent filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, seeking for a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to pay interest for delayed settlement of his pensionary benefits. The learned single Judge, in impugned order directed the appellants to pay the interest for the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits payable to the third respondent and thereafter proceed to recover it from the Government if the delay in settlement of the pensionary benefits was caused on account of the default on the part of the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by us earlier, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Niranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while strongly urging that there was no delay on the part of the appellants in forwarding the papers for settlement of pensionary benefits, submitted that even if there is delay, under the rules, the primary responsibility of the State being to settle the pensionary benefits and pay the interest for the delay caused in settling the benefit, the State could only proceed to recover the interest from the appellants if it is shown that the appellants were responsible for the delay in settling the pensionary benefits. In this connection, he referred to the Government Order No. ED 47 SBS 81, dated 16th January, 1985, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R1 to this appeal, wherein the private educational institutions are brought within the frame work of Triple Benefit Scheme (TBS), i.e, provident fund, compulsory insurance and pension. In addition to the said Government Order he also brought to our notice the Government Order No. FD (SPL) 199 PEN 93 dated 13th September 1994, wherein, a provision is made for payment of interest for the delayed disbursement of pensionary benefits. Therefore, he submits that since it is the primary liability of the State to settle the pensionary benefits to the retired teachers and other staff of aided educational institutions, it is the duty of the State to pay interest for the delayed settlements of pensionary benefits. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants to pay the interest.

4. Sri Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned Addl. Government Advocate while unable to dispute that in the light of the Government Order dated 16th January 1985 and 13th September 1994, that the State is liable to settle the pensionary benefits and also is liable to pay the interest for the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits, strongly urged that in the present case since the delay has been caused on account of the default on the part of the appellants in not sending the pension papers in time to the concerned officials of the State, the appellants should be made liable to pay the interest. In support of the submission that the default has been caused by the appellants, learned Government Advocate relied upon the affidavit of the Director of Collegiate Education filed before this Court. Wherein he has stated that the delay has been caused on account of the default on the part of the appellants. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the statement of the State that the delay in settlement of the pensionary benefits payable to respondent No. 3 has been caused on account of the default on the part of the appellants, having directed the appellants to pay interest for the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent, there is no justification to interfere against the order impugned.

5. Sri Sreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent strongly supporting the submission of Sri Niranjan, submitted that the primary liability to pay the interest being on the State, a direction is required to be given to respondents 1 and 2 to pay the interest to the 3rd respondent for the delayed settlement of his pensionary benefit.

6. In the light of the rival submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is as to whether respondents 1 and 2 are required to pay the interest for the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent.

7. There is no dispute that there has been considerable delay in settlement of pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent. As noticed by us earlier, the only question is, who is liable to pay the interest for such delayed settlement of pensionary benefits? The Government Order dated 16th January 1985 makes triple benefits scheme introduced, to the employees of the teachers and staff of the Government educational institutions applicable to the teachers and staff of the aided education institutions. There is no dispute on this aspect. The Government Order dated 13th September 1994 provides for payment of interest at 12% per annum in respect of retirement/death benefits payable to the government servants. Clause (2) of the said Government Order provides that the pensionary benefits should be settled within three months from the date of his retirement from service after due verification of the pension records, etc. It is useful to extract sub-clause (2)(a) of the said Government Order, which reads as hereunder:

“2(a) The retirement benefits due to a Government servant shall be settled within three months from the date following the last date of the months in which he retires from service after due verification of pension records, etc. If for any reason not attributable to the Government servant, the retirement benefits are not settled within this time limit, interest is payable at 12% from the date of expiry of the above mentioned time limit upto last date of the month preceding the month of payment/settlement.”

The said provision makes it clear that if there is delay in settling the pensionary benefits, the State is labile to pay interest at 12% per annum for the delayed payment. However, by means of a subsequent Government Order dated 2nd September 2004, made in No. Aa. Ee. (Vishesha) 1 PEN 04, the rate of interest has been reduced from 12% to 8% per annum. So far as the claim of the 3rd respondent for payment of interest is concerned, the Government Order applicable is the Government Order dated 13th September 1994 and not the Government Order dated 2nd September 2004. Clause (6) of the Government Order dated 13th September 1994 further provides that in cases where there is a delay in submission of pension papers to the Accountant General by the departmental authorities, the head of the department, after thorough examination of the case should send a proposal to the Government specifying the reasons for the delay and also the action taken against the official/officer responsible for the delay and the interest to be paid for such delay. Clause (7) of the said Government Order further empowers the Government to recover the interest paid, from the person concerned who is responsible for the delay in settlement of the pension and other retirement/death benefits. It is needful to extract clauses (6) & (7) of the said Government Order, which reads as follows:

“(6) In cases where there is delay in submission of pension papers to the Accountant General by the Departmental authorities, the Head of the Department shall, after thorough examination of the case, submit a proposal to the Government, specifying the reasons for the delay and also the action taken against the official/officer responsible for the delay and the interest to be paid for such delay.

(7) The interest paid shall be recovered from the authority competent to sanction the pension or the person concerned who is responsible for the delay in settlement of pension and other retirement/death benefits.”

8. Therefore, from a reading of the Government Order dated 13th September, 1994, it is clear that the State is liable not only to settle the pensionary benefits of a teacher or a staff of the aided educational institution, it is also liable to pay the interest on such delayed settlement of retirement benefits. Clauses (6) & (7) of the Government Order dated 13th September 1994 referred to above only enables the State to hold the person responsible for the delay caused in settlement of the retirement benefits and recover the interest paid for the delayed settlement of retirement benefits from the person who has caused such a delay. Therefore, we find considerable force in the submission of Sri Niranjan that the learned Single Judge was not justified in fastening the liability on the appellants to pay the interest. From the order impugned, passed by the learned single Judge, it is quite obvious that the Government Orders referred to above were not brought to his notice and as such he had no occasion to consider the same. Therefore, while we are of the view that respondents 1 & 2 are liable to pay the interest for the delay caused in settlement of the pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent, we are also of the view that it is permissible for respondents 1 & 2 to recover the said interest paid by respondents 1 & 2 to the 3rd respondent from the concerned official/authority/person/institution, whoever is responsible for such a delay. Therefore, it is necessary to point out that on an enquiry, if respondents 1 & 2 are satisfied that either appellants 1 & 2 or any of the officials of the State are responsible for the delay in settlement of the pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent, the State is entitled to recover the same either from the appellants or such other official/person/authority/institution, whoever was responsible for the delay caused in settlement of the pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent.

9. Before parting with this order, we are compelled to observed that it has come to the notice of this Court that on many occasions there has been considerable delay in settlement of pensionary benefits payable either to the Government servants on their retirement or in the case of death, to their legal heirs; and under those circumstances, on many occasions, the aggrieved parties had to approach this Court for settlement of pensionary benefits and the State is compelled to pay interest. In our view, the only way to ensure settlement of pensionary benefits within the time stipulated by the State is to make concerned Officers/authorities/officials/institutions responsible for the delay, if any caused and recover the same from their salary, in addition to instituting disciplinary proceedings against such erring officials. Further, we are of the view that it is also in the interest of justice to impress upon the concerned officials, that they will be personally held responsible for payment of interest for any deficiency or default on their parts in taking steps for settlement of pensionary benefits payable to retired Government servants. Therefore, we are of the view that it is just and necessary to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka with a direction to him to get this order communicated to the officials in charge of settlement of pensionary benefits.

10. In the light of what is stated above, we make the following order:

(1) The order dated 23rd August 2001 made in W.P No. 1294/1999 is set aside and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to settle the pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent as expenditiously as possible, at any event of the matter, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(2) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct an enquiry for the delay caused in settlement of the pensionary benefits payable to the 3rd respondent and recover the interest from the officials/authority/persons/institutions including the appellants who is at default. Such an enquiry shall be held by respondents 1 and 2 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

(3) Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for necessary action as observed at paragraph 9 above.

11. In terms stated above, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.