IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7427 of 2010 1. RAJESHWAR SHARMA S/O LATE BALDEO SHARMA R/O VILL.- MADHOPUR, P.S. JANIPUR, DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS HEAD TEACHER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, NIHURA, PHULWARISHARIF, ANCHAL- PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT.- PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA 7. THE HEAD MASTER - CUM - DRAWING & DISBURSING OFFICER, MIDDLE SCHOOL PHULWARISHARIF, ANCHAL PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 02 14.07.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-7, the order of the District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Patna, which in the opinion of this Court verges on contempt. Petitioner had moved this Court for grant of his arrears of salary and for interest on delayed payment thereof. The writ petition was disposed of alongwith several other cases, being C.W.J.C. No.13187 of 2004 by order dated 28.03.2007. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to calculate the arrears and, if there being delay in payment thereof, then to award interest also. What was the interest and how it is to be calculated not contained in the order of this Court. The authorities having sat over the matter, petitioner had filed contempt application before this Court being M.J.C. No.3092 of 2009. While the matter was pending, it appears that by memo no.754 dated 06.02.2010, the D.S.E., Patna issued - 2 - orders for immediate payment of the arrears along with interest to the petitioner after full verification. In the said order of the D.S.E., it was clearly stated that from the date of revision of pay with effect from 01.01.1996, the petitioner would be entitled to revised pay and, if there being delay, he would be entitled to interest @ 5% on the delayed payment. Accordingly, payment was made to the petitioner in which Rs.2,83,242/-, which was the interest component alone. This payment having been made, a show cause was filed in the said contempt application and upon statement and such payment, the contempt application being M.J.C. No.3092 of 2009 was disposed of on 22.03.2010. Since after the contempt application was disposed of petitioner was served with the impugned order, as contained in memo no.1697 dated 20.03.2010, of the D.S.E., Patna, which is impugned in this writ petition. In that letter the D.S.E. clearly notes that it is pursuant to the order in the writ petition and his earlier order dated 06.02.2010, the amount and the interest was calculated and paid to the petitioner, which compliance was also reported to this Court in the show cause filed in the contempt application. It is now stated that he has just learnt that in the year 1996 petitioner was put under suspension and it is because of that salaries were not paid regularly and his pay revision could not be done. The D.S.E. having taken stand before this Court now changes stand and holds that State is not responsible for revising and making payment of arrears. He, therefore, directed that entire payment of interest of Rs.2,83,242/- - 3 - be recovered from the petitioner immediately in one instalment, failing which Rs.10,000/- per month be deducted from his salary towards the amount. The propriety and legality of the order has been challenged in this writ petition. Having considered the matter, in my view, the amount having been calculated and paid on there own by the State instrumentalities including interest. It is too late in the day to revise the order and try to recover the payment. This Court had left it to the discretion of the authorities in the writ petition, as noticed above, to determine the delay and, if the delay was there, pay interest. It has neither quantified the period nor stipulated the rate. The D.S.E. vide his order dated 06.02.2010 himself stipulated the period and the rate of interest and direct immediate payment to the petitioner. Once payment was made and compliance was reported to the Court in the contempt matter, the matter should have ended. If the money paid on the basis whereof the M.J.C. has been disposed of had to be recovered, then the proper course for the D.S.E. was to approach the Court and take orders. Petitioner is right in submitting that having passed the order and made the payment, respondent misled the Court into dropping the contempt proceedings and, once the compliance was reported to the Court in the contempt matter, the order showing compliance itself was withdrawn. That is the way the D.S.E. is verging on contempt. The order cannot be sustained. In any view of the matter, the determination being of the department itself. It - 4 - cannot back track and withdraw the same. Whether there was justification for interest or not was point to be considered prior to making payment. The excuse given to recall that order is a lame excuse. Whether a person is suspended or not cannot deny him the right to pay his revised salary. Thus, there was inordinate delay and petitioner was rightly paid the amount of interest for the delayed payment. The same cannot be recovered from the petitioner now. Accordingly, Annexure-7, the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna as memo no.1697 dated 20.03.2010 is set aside. Any amount recovered from petitioner’s salary pursuant to the said impugned order in the meantime would be immediately within 15 days re-credited to the petitioner’s account. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)