IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13117 of 2011 1. Ramji Thakur S/O Late Jageshwar Thakur R/O Vill.- Singia, Post + P.S.- Singia, Distt.- Samastipur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 3. The Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Animal Husbandary, Bihar, Patna 5. The Collector, Samastipur, 6. The District Animal Husbandary Officer, Samastipur ---------------------------------- 3. 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on 7.12.2011 after serving copy on the counsel for the petitioner. The same is not available on record. The Court requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. The office shall place the original counter affidavit on record. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Peon, a class-IV employee in the department of Animal Husbandary. He has taken up cudgels against the mite of the State for his salary dues from 10.10.1999 to 22.2.2001 along with bonus for the year 1998-99 as also to be considered for grant of A.C.P. Relying on Paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that the respondents have 2 admitted that the petitioner has marked attendance at the office in the concerned register from 10.10.1999. Counsel for the State foremost raises the objection of delay in preferring the claim years later. It was next urged from the counter affidavit that the petitioner put his signature forcibly on the Attendance Register. But it was fairly acknowledged that the counter affidavit does not make any disclosure that if the petitioner committed any alleged act of indiscipline why no action was taken against him. It is also acknowledged that the counter affidavit is silent on the aspect of bonus and A.C.P. The aspect of delay to deny relief in a writ petition is not a rule of law but more a matter of discretion to be exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution so that justice is not denied on hyper technicality. What justice may mean in the facts of a case shall vary from one to another. A Peon seeking monetary relief cannot be placed at par with a Class-I officer seeking monetary relief. The Peon has to survive before he can litigate. It is only after the fire in his kitchen has burned that he shall approach the Court. The 3 Court is satisfied that in the given status of the petitioner it is unfortunate that the State is raising an objection of delay without explaining the conduct of its own officers in having generated this litigation. If the petitioner has marked attendance in the register, there is a presumption that he was performing duties. The presumption is of course rebuttable. If he had forcibly marked attendance and was not discharging duties, the respondents were obliged to take action against him. If a particular government personnel did not take action against the petitioner it amounts to dereliction of duty on part of that officer rendering him liable for disciplinary action. No third party rights are being affected by claim for arrears of salary, bonus and A.C.P. The State cannot claim that its finances will be affected by making payment to a Peon. The preamble of the Constitution provides for economic justice and the directive principles under Chapter 4 of the Constitution require it to ensure economic justice to the petitioner under Articles 38, 39 and 42. Let the respondents pay the legitimate 4 dues for arrears of salary from 10.10.1999 to 22.2.2001 along with bonus for the year 1998-99 as also consider his claim for grant of A.C.P, all of which must be done within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to observe that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential orders and actual physical payments must be made within the same period failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim interest which shall naturally have to be recovered from the delinquent concerned and not from the coffers of the State. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)