IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7576 of 2010 GULJAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE JANARDAN SINGH R/O VILL.- KUSAMI, P.S. PAUDHOO, DISTT.- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA 7. THE COMMISSIONER, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. P.N. Sahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State :- Mr.A.Amanullah, G.A. No. 9. Mr.M.K.Pathak, A.C to G.A. – 9 Mr.A.K.Prasad, A.C to G.A. - 9 ------------------ 03. 14.07.2010 As prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya division, Gaya as respondent no. 7. Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner while working on the post of Revenue Clerk under the respondent no. 6, he was dismissed on 30th of January 1988 one day prior to the date of superannuation i.e. 31st of January 1988. Petitioner after being unsuccessful in challenging the dismissal order in the departmental appeal, filed a writ petition in this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1677 of 1991 which was dismissed by order dated 2 09.12.1999. Petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal vide L.P.A. No. 366 of 2000 which was heard and disposed of by order dated 28th of October 2003, and the order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority which was upheld in the departmental appeal as also the order dismissing the writ petition was set aside. The court while allowing the appeal in the second last paragraph of the order observed/held as follows :- “ In usual course, we would have remitted the matter to the authority concerned to proceed afresh with the enquiry but it was brought to out notice that the appellant has already retired on 31st January, 1988. We have also gone through the nature of the allegations which are alleged to be only recommendation made by the appellant for opening of demands. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and also the fact that now after retirement proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules cannot be initiated as more than four years have passed from the alleged misconduct. We are of the view that no case for remitting 3 the matter is made out.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing the aforesaid order petitioner was reinstated in the service vide office order contained in memo no. 518 dated 4th of May 2004 as contained in Annexure -2 with further order that the service of the petitioner shall be taken as continuous service and all the retiral dues be paid. He further submits that the admitted retiral dues were paid for the period 05.07.2004 to 22.08.2006 with respect to the different heads. Petitioner through the writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 13535 of 2009 sought for direction to the authority concerned for payment of interest for the delayed payment since he got reinstated in the service and retired on 31st of January 1988 pursuant to the order contained in Annexure- 2 which was issued following the order of this court on the appeal filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure- 1. The above said writ petition with regard to claim for payment of interest was disposed of by order dated 14.10.2009 as contained in Annexure- 5 directing the Collector Gaya, District Gaya to consider the representation of the petitioner which was to be filed pursuant to the order of this court for claiming interest. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and disposed of by 4 order contained in memo no. 750 dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure- 7) whereby the claim for interest has been rejected. In support of the claim for interest learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the office order as contained in Annexure-2, it would appear that after the order of dismissal was set aside, the petitioner was reinstated in service with further direction that he should be paid all his retiral dues as per law. He further submits that authorities were required to pay the interest for the delayed payment since the delay is on account of the dismissal order passed against the petitioner which was ultimately set aside by this court. He further submits that on perusal of the second last paragraph of the order, it would appear that one of the consideration for not remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry was that the nature of allegation alleged against the petitioner was only recommendation made by him for opening the demands as such, the court taking into consideration the nature of allegation alleged against the petitioner read with the fact that the petitioner had already retired on 31st of January 1988 as also the proceeding cannot be initiated against him under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner 5 is entitled to reasonable interest. Mr. A. Amanullaha, the learned Government Advocate No. IX, on the other hand, submits that on perusal of the order of this court as contained in Annexure -1, it would appear that in court did not say anything with regard to the merits of the case, however, the matter was not remitted back on account of two reasons firstly, petitioner retired on 31st of January 1988 and secondly nature of allegation which was attributed against him. Moreover it is submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ application without exhausting the effective alternative remedy available to him as the delay of the matter needs to be enquired from the relevant records in order to determine the claim for interest made by him. Considering the submissions of the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the order bearing memo no. 750 dated 18.03.2010 as contained in annexure- 7 is quashed. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh and detailed representation before the newly added respondent no. 7. In such view of the matter, in case representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the 6 relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider and disposed of the claims of the petitioner as raised in the representation by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Respondent no. 7 while considering the representation of the petitioner shall consider the points raised by the petitioner in his representation as also the copy of the relevant documents annexed with such representation in support of his claim. Upon consideration, if the representation of the petitioner finds favour, the admitted dues found payable may also be paid preferably within a period of one month thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)