IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8016 of 2007 DR.RAVINDRA NATH SHRIVASTAVA, Aged about 68 years, a Senior Citizen, Son of Late Murlidhar Shrivastava, Resident of M.I.G. 244 Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station – Patrakar Nagar, District – Patna. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, having his office in Vikas Bhawan, Police Station – Sachivalaya, District – Patna. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 3. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 4. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 5. The Principal, College of Commerce, Kankarbagh, District – Patna. .......... Respondents ----------- 13 23.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 5, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1/State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Magadh University. The present writ petition was initially filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of interest at the rate of 18 % Per Annum (P.A.) on the delayed payment of his retiral dues. The petitioner, who retired with effect from 31.01.2000 as University Professor, Department of English, College of Commerce under the Magadh University, due to non-payment of retiral dues had earlier approached this court by filing writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 770 of 2005 which stood disposed of on 02.12.2005 (Annexure-8). Since the order was not complied with, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition for initiating contempt vide M.J.C. No. 923 of 2006. During the pendency of the contempt petition since all the the retiral dues of the petitioner was paid, the contempt petition was dismissed by order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure -9). However, while dismissing the contempt petition this court observed that “If so advised the petitioner may prefer a separate writ application for any other reliefs.” Persuaded with the observation of this court in M.J.C. No. 923 of 2006 the present writ petition was filed solely with an object to direct the respondents to make payment of interest as indicated above on delayed payment of all the retiral dues. The petitioner has given details in Annexure -6 to the petition regarding the date of payment of retiral dues. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even in counter affidavit the university has not disputed the statement made in paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition, and accordingly, the facts mentioned in paragraph no. 16 as well as Annexure-6 was admitted. In view of aforesaid fact it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not in dispute that retiral dues was paid at delayed stage. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, wherein, a prayer was made to amend the prayer portion to the extent of a declaration that petitioner being retired University Professor is entitled to get benefit of merger of 50 % dearness relief on his basic pension with effect from 01.01.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of granting interest on delayed payment of retiral dues has referred number of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. A.I.R. 1985 SC 356 (State of Kerala & Ors. Vs M. Padmanabhan Nair) and A.I.R.-2000-SC- 3513(2) (Vijay L Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. & Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Annexure -7 to the petition which is a photo copy of order dated 29.04.1998 passed in L.P.A. No. 306 of 1998 by a Division Bench of this court. In the said case the Division Bench of this court had directed the authority concerned to calculate interest from the date post retiral amount became due till the date it was actually paid. The court also directed for payment of interest at the rate of 18 % Per Annum (P.A.). Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to get interest on delayed payment of retiral dues. So far entitlement of 50 % merger of dearness relief on the basic pension of the petitioner is concerned, the court is of the opinion that in view of number of decisions of this court as well as an order passed by this court reported in 2011(1)PLJR-900 (Dr. Himanshu Bhushan Vs T.M. Bhagalpur University), the petitioner is entitled to get the said relief. Accordingly, relief sought for by the petitioner for a declaration that petitioner is entitled for merger of 50 % dearness relief on his basic pension is allowed in terms of order dated 03.12.2010 reported in Dr. Himanshu Bhushans's case (Supra). So far claim of interest is concerned, the court is of the opinion that this matter may not be decided conclusively by this court keeping in view the fact that retiral dues were paid to the petitioner on number of dates as per Annexure-6 to the petition. For the purposes of claim of interest, the court is of the opinion, that petitioner can be granted liberty to file a detailed representation before Vice- Chancellor/Registrar of the Magadh University within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent Vice- Chancellor/Registrar, Magadh University is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in view the law clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases mentioned above within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. In case the aforesaid respondents consider the claim of the petitioner as genuine and in accordance with law, he is required to pass order for payment of interest amount at the rate applicable in the saving account of the nationalised bank. Even in case of refusal, aforesaid respondents are required to pass a speaking order within aforesaid time. With above observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)