IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10044 of 2007 Ram Prasad, Aged about 69 years, Son of Late Kalo Mallah, Resident of Kankarbagh Colony, Slum No. 200, Block No. 13, Police Station – Kankarbagh, District - Patna . Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Housing Department having his office in Vishweshsaraiya Bhavan, Police Station – Shastri Nagar, District – Patna. 2. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Housing Board, having his office in 6 Mangles Road, Police Station – Sachivalaya, District- Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Division No. 1, having his office in Kankarbagh, Police Station – Kankarbagh, District – Patna. 4. The Accountant General (A&E)-II, Bihar, Patna having his office in Birchand Patel Path, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Patna. ----------- 2 07.07.2011 Heard Sri Manmohan who was assisted by Sri Vikash Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Jahan Ara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1/State of Bihar, Smt. Vinita Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3/Bihar State Housing Board and Sri S.M. Ehtesham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4/Accountant General (A&E)-II, Bihar Patna. In the present writ petition a peculiar prayer has been made by the petitioner for directing the respondents to calculate interest at the rate of 10% on the difference of amount of pension due to revision of his pension with effect from 01.09.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has based his claim for such interest in view of order passed by this court in CWJC No. 11824 of 1998 Annexure -4 to the writ petition. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner who retired as Jeep Driver with effect from 31.08.1996 from Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. Since he was not paid his retiral dues he approached this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction vide CWJC No. 11824 of 1998. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to make payment of pensionary benefit on the basis of emolument which petitioner was receiving on the date of his retirement. This court further directed to pay 10 % per annum interest on retiral dues till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that subsequently the pension of the petitioner was revised in the light of revision of the central pay and as such in the light of order dated 27.09.1999 passed in CWJC No. 11824 of 1998 the petitioner was entitled to claim 10% interest on the difference of amount of pension on its revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 19.02.2007 passed by Dy. Secretary of the Housing Department, whereby claim of the petitioner for paying interest on difference of amount of revised pension was rejected. Learned counsel for the Board (respondent nos. 2 & 3) Smt. Vinita Singh has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that interest of 10% which was to be paid to the petitioner was to be paid on the retiral dues in compliance with the order of this court in CWJC 11824 of 1998. She submits that retiral dues in compliance with the order of this court was already paid to the petitioner by the State Government. She further points out that on difference amount of revision of pension there is no provision for granting interest. The court is in agreement with the learned counsel for the Board. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this court any provision indicating entitlement of the petitioner for claim of interest on difference amount of revised pension. In view of the facts and circumstances the court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition stands rejected. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)