IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1152 of 2002 MOST. KAMLA DEVI Wife of Late Saryug Pd. Choudhary, resident of Village Dih Nizamat, PO Keoti, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura ……(Petitioner)-Appellant Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Central Electric Supply Area, 8 Daroga Rai Path, Patna …( Respondents)-Respondents ----------- 07- 25.8.2009 Heard Mr. Shivaji Pandey for the appellant, and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.3522 of 2002 (Most. Kamla Devi vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.). By order dated 6.9.2002, passed in the said writ petition, direction was given for payment of the unpaid amounts of post-retirement dues admissible to her late husband, and payable to the petitioner in the capacity of his widow, and the petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order whereby interest has been denied to her. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the late employee joined the services of the respondent Board on 1.12.1959, superannuated with effect from 30.6.1999, and died on 15.7.2001. He was paid 90% of his post- retirement dues leading to the aforesaid writ petition, whereby the Board was directed to examine the grievances of the petitioner and make payment of the dues within a period of three months. The petitioner’s prayer for payment of interest was rejected, and instead consolidated sum of Rs.3000/- has been awarded by way of compensation because the petitioner being a widow was - 2 - forced to approach this Court. The appeal is confined to the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Board opposes the appeal. However, it appears to us that the Board has not set up a case of indiscipline, dishonesty, or pendency of the proceeding against the late employee at the time of his superannuation, or poor service record. In that view of the matter, it would be better exercise of discretion to grant interest @6% to the petitioner on the belated payment(s) from the dates amounts became due till the date of payment. 4. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is modified to the above extent. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl - 3 - mrl - 4 - mrl