the petitioner finally submitted such applications, payments have been made within a few months between February, 2015 to August, 2015. Learned counsel submitted that the circulars of the Bank are basically for instructions to the Competent Authority to be prompt in payment of terminal dues but the same does not confer any right on the employee to interest on delayed payment. Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of compulsory retirement, the dues payable to the petitioner came to Rs. 14,41,592/- relating to Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment whereas the outstanding in the loan account of the petitioner was Rs. 6,89,636.07/-, which the petitioner owed to the Bank under such loan accounts relating to housing loan, car loan and overdraft. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to order dated 25.02.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13885 of 2012, in the case of Badri Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , in which on the point of charging of interest on the loan account of the aforesaid writ petitioner even after superannuation of the employee, the Court had held that till the time the loan account is finally settled and the petitioner neither having expressed his desire nor having communicated the same to the Bank authorities to adjust from his retiral benefits, the authorities could not, at the very initial stage have done the same and if they have so done at the final stage of making
