IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.439 of 2011 IN CWJC No.10007 of 2002 With I.A.No.1994 of 2011 With I.A.No.1995 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary (Budget), Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Project Coordinator Tube well Section, Minor Irrigation Department, Bishbairya Bhawan, Fourth Floor, Patna (Bihar) 5. The Chief Engineer, Tube well section, South Division, Sheikhpura, Patna (Bihar). 6. The Superintendent Engineer, Minor Irrigation Tube well section, Mithapur, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Belan Bazar, Munger. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Tube well section, Lakhisaria 9. The Junior Engineer, Tube well Section, Lakhisarai. 10. The Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Bettiah (West Champaran) - Appellants Versus 1. Mahadeo Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Subhe Singh, resident of village- Maithi, P.S. Gayaghat, P.O.-Maithi, District-Muzaffarpur, at present resident of Lal Darbaja- Kamal Baban Road, House of Sadhu Sharan Singh, P.O. Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger - Petitioner-Respondent 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Munger. 5. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 6. The Treasury Officer, Munger. 2 7. The Treasury Officer, Lakhisarai -Respondents-Respondents (2nd set) ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC-7 Mr. Kumar Pankaj, A.C. to S.C. 7 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 23.03.2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 15th June 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 10007 of 2002, four years and 195 days beyond the period of limitation. Learned Advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly directed the State Government to pay salary of the writ petitioner from May 1995 to November 1998 and to pay interest at the rate of 9% over such amount. The learned advocate has drawn our attention to the statement made 3 in paragraph 12 of the appeal memo. He has submitted that at the relevant time the writ petitioner was the employee of the Bihar Water Development Corporation. On taking over of the Corporation by the State Government, the service of the writ petitioner stood absorbed in the State service in November 1998. The State Government was, therefore, not liable to pay salary to the writ petitioner till the date of his absorption in the Government service. Within four years of his absorption in the Government service he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. The writ petitioner had thus not rendered pensionable service under the State Government. Nevertheless, he has been wrongly paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,620/- by way of provisional pension from July 2002 to November 2006. Similarly, he has been paid an excess amount of gratuity and leave encashment. Thus he has been paid Rs.3,34,919/-, in excess of his entitlement. In that view of the matter, the order for payment of interest made by the learned Single Judge was not justified. We see no substance in this Appeal. The learned Single Judge has categorically held 4 that the Corporation was funded by the State Government and therefore, the obligation to pay the salary of the employees of the Corporation was that of the State Government. The said finding is not challenged before us. In the Appeal memo, though it is stated that the appellant has been made payment in excess, it does not disclose the date on which such payments were made. We are therefore, unable to accept that the appellants should not have been made liable to pay interest on delayed payment. As recorded hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has made specific order for payment of arrears of salary to the extent of Rs. 1,78,693/- and to pay interest on that amount. If the appellant has made erroneous payment of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., it is the appellant or its officer who is wholly responsible. For that reason, the order of the learned Single cannot be held to be wrong. Be that as it may, we are not satisfied with the cause for the delay either. It appears that the papers were moved from table to table for almost a year. Thereafter, the appellants 5 chose to file a review application which remained pending for around three years. Since the dismissal of the review application on 27th August 2010, the Appeal has been filed four months thereafter adding to the delay already caused. In absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are dismissed. Let appellant-State Government decide how the recovery of the excess payment made to the writ petitioner should be effected. Bibhash (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)