IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2183 of 2008 Ram Pravesh Bhagat, son of Shivbaran Bhagat, resident of village- Bhusapur, P.O.- Kaiel Bhupat, P.S.-Arwal, District-Arwal at present resident of Aurganbad. ……. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, State of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad. 4. The District Agricultural Officer, Aurangabad. 5. The Block Development Officer, At Huspura, Aurangabad. 6. The District Provident Officer at Aurangabad. 7. The Accountant General, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. ……. Respondents. ----------- 04 20.02.2009 At last the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad has woken up under threat of contempt by this Court. A counter affidavit at last has been filed. It should make a very sorry reading. Petitioner retired on 31.07.2004. As per the counter affidavit itself, payment of substantial retiral dues were made after four years of retirement, arrears of salary is now being tendered, which arrears pertained to the year 1998-2003. The petitioner was not paid because of lack of allotment of funds and other such reasons. Firstly, I direct that all these amounts from the time they were due to be paid to the petitioner must be paid to him and the District Magistrate-cum-Collector would ensure that the petitioner would be compensated with a simple interest of 12% per annum for the delayed payment without any just cause or reason. This payment will have to be 2 calculated and the District Magistrate-cum-Collector should ensure that it is made to the petitioner within 45 days of the presentation of a copy of order of this Court before him by the petitioner. The next issue is with regard to the disbursement of payment which is lying in the Treasury Officer. This again is something where the petitioner is being penalized for no faults of his. Petitioner’s salary for almost four years was not paid. Now four years salary is being paid in arrears State wants to deduct income tax, as if it is payment of salary for the current year itself. For default of the State being prompt in payment of salary, the petitioner must pay heavy income tax. Two things emerge from this. Either the petitioner be compensated to the extent of income tax liability by the State, which liability was not there if payments were made in time or secondly State would treat these payments as payment of salary in arrear and treating the same in appropriate division of the income tax, which grants reliefs accordingly. The salary would be split up in respective year to which it pertains, income tax liability each year accordingly calculated and then deductions made. It is left to the discretion of the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Aurangabad to choose either of the options, but certainly the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Aurangabad would take an appropriate decision in the matter within 45 days and advise the Treasury accordingly and ensure payment to the petitioner accordingly, notwithstanding end of financial year, which shall not be an excuse to delay payments to the petitioner any further. These payments, as noted above would also include interest for 3 delayed payment. Any other grievance of the petitioner like ACP arrears of salary because of pay revision shall also be considered by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad within the same period. With these directions and observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)