IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9468 OF 2007 MOSOMAT RAM DASI DEVI, W/O LATE YAMUNA SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE + P.O GOPALPUR, P.S NAUBATPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 5.THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA SADAR, PATNA. 6.THE HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, ANDHARIPUR MATHIA ANCHAL BIKRAM, DISTRICT PATNA. 7.THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, CHINI MILL, BIHTA, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 17.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner as with regard to payment of salary of her husband for the period of his suspension from 09.06.1997 to 14.06.2000, at long last seems to have been redressed only when the respondents had found it inevitable in course of filing of their counter affidavit, which in fact has not been done till today, despite the writ application remaining pending for a period of more than four years. The widow petitioner, after the death of her husband, the employee who was entitled to receive payment of salary for the period of suspension in view of there 2 being no such stipulation made in the final order revoking the order of suspension as with regard to withholding payment of salary for the period of suspension had to however suffer for a period of 11 years, only on account of inaction on the part of concerned official respondents particularly the District Superintendent of Education, (D.S.E),Patna. The D.S.E, Patna being the Secretary to the District Education Establishment Committee however owed a duty to ensure that the husband of the petitioner in his lifetime i.e., till 20.11.2000 should have been paid the salary for the period of his suspension from 09.06.1997 to 14.06.2000 or at least to the petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee who died in harness on 20.11.2000. It is really shocking that the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post to get the legitimate amount of salary of her husband and could get the same only after filing of this writ application. Today a statement of fact dated 15.10.2011, prepared and signed by the District Programme Officer (establishment), Patna the successor in office of D.S.E 3 Patna has been produced by the learned counsel for the State for satisfying this Court that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and in this regard he has referred to paragraph no. 2, 3 and 4 of his statement of fact which reads as follows:- “That the answering deponent soon after having come to know of the present case and from perusal of the said writ application, it had ben found that the husband of the petitioner, during his service tenure, had been placed under suspension vide memo no. 4327 dated 06.09.1997 and departmental proceeding was initiated and later on final order, in the said proceeding had been passed by the then D.S.E Patna vide memo no. 4687 dated 14.06.2000 exonerated from suspension and departmental proceeding was dropped with warning. That as per the payment report received from the concerned headmaster cum D.D.O vide letter no. 125 dt. 14.10.11 payment of subsistence allowance at the rate 50% for the aforesaid period of suspension had already been made. That in the aforesaid factual position, an order has been passed by the answering deponent vide letter no. 5228 dt. 14.10.2011 directing the concerned headmaster cum D.D.O to ensure payment of the remaining amount of salary for the aforesaid period of suspension to the petitioner from the allotment provided earlier.” From the aforementioned stand of the District Programme Officer (establishment), Patna, it thus becomes fully clear that only when he had to file the counter 4 affidavit in this writ application pending since, 31.07.2007 in this Court that he could take a decision only on 14.10.2011 either for payment of subsistence allowance or balance salary payable to the husband of the petitioner. There is in fact no explanation whatsoever in the statement of fact for such an unreasonable delay in making payment of salary of the husband of the petitioner either in his lifetime or to the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee. In that view of the matter, while this Court would direct the District Programme Officer (establishment), Patna to ensure that the amount of subsistence allowance/salary as directed by him in his two orders dated 14.10.2011, be made to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with simple interest @ 9 per cent per annum on the entire amount of arrears of salary of the husband of the petitioner for the period 14.06.2000 to the date of its payment. Such payment of amount of interest also must be made to the petitioner within the same 5 period by the District Programme Officer (establishment), Patna. It shall be, however, open for the District Programme Officer (establishment), Patna to recover such amount from the erring officials at whose negligence and/or dereliction of duty, the petitioner and/or her husband had remained deprived of receiving payment of salary for the period of more than 11 years from the date of its entitlement i.e. 14.06.2000. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the State who will not only ensure strict compliance thereof by the District Programme Officer but also apprise the Director Administration of the Human Resources Development Department for taking necessary action against the erring officials. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)