G) w CT»? MF u LN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHT‘AT BILASPUR W. P. N0. Big /2003 if PETITIONER : Shafiullah Khan, S/o. Late Shri Shamiullah Khan, aged about 44 years, Occu.-Asstt. Grade—II, R/o. Jarhabhata, (gr? District - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS \ RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Departent of Adimjati, AnuSuchitjati, Pichhra Varg Evam Alpnkhyak Kalyan Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building Rair, District - Raipur (CG . Director) Adivasi Vikas, Department ofAdimjati, Anusuchitjati, Pichhra Varg Evarn Alpsankhyak , Kalyan, Raipur (C.G.) . Collector, (Adivasi Vikas) Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (CG) . Assistan Comissioner i Adivasj Vikas, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) . Reserch Officer, l Triba Research Centre {is Kada Bhawan, Bilaspur (CiGi) ;,j WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OI: INDIA. 22"6/227 LOE THE a i PARTICULARS \ OF THE PETITIONER : As stated above. / , m sa pu ); t m a l <0 ,b\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3197 of 2003 Sh&ullah Khan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOg OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agm'hotri J.) Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Peu'tioner onnEmoran (Passed on this 15th day of Septembtr, 2009) Heard. By this peu'tion, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to disbuxse the salary of the petitioner for 23 months with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and further compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ —. In the retuxn dated 8.7.2004 the respondents have already mede it clear that during the pendency of the writ petition the salary of the petitioner has already been ordered to be released. Thus, no grievance survives in regard to payment of salary to the petitioner. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State that the interest cannot be paid to the petitioner as the salary was delayed on account of time taken in departmental procedure. A So far as the claim of the petitioner to direct payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ —, on account of delay in making payment of salary, is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation, that too to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, 4 g ”a 'L/ if there is a delay in making payment. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for compensation is rejected. This Court is of the considered opinion that if there is no provision to pay interest on delayed payment of salaly, this Court cannot direct to grant payment of interest, de hors the statutmy provisions. Even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner to pay the interest at commercial rate i.e. @ 18% per annnm, is not admissible. Further, it appears that there is no provision to claim compensah'on for the delayed payment of salary. If the petitioner is claiming compensation as damages, which has neither been established nor pleaded in this writ petin'on, the petitioner may agitate the same before the appropriate forum. This Court cannot issue a writ, directing the respondents to pay a compensan‘on for no rhyme or reason and for delayed payment of salary no compensau'on is payable. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, nothing survives in this matter for adjudication and as such, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. saush K Agnjhotri 1 Judge Sd/- Thakur M F t;