IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7169 of 2010 Sheo Nath Lal Das @Shiva Nath Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Despite a passage of time for over one and a half years since the filing of the writ petition no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. A specific adjournment for the purpose on the earlier occasion also has been of no help. On the previous day the matter was passed over at the request of the counsel for the State. He has placed before this court today the written instructions received by him along with enclosures in proof of certain payments. No useful purpose shall be served by adjourning the matter any further. The instructions and the enclosures are directed to be kept on record in their original form. The office shall furnish photocopies of the same to the counsel for the petitioner. The claim in the writ application was with regard to the alleged wrongful deduction of a sum of Rs. 47,553.00/- from the salary of the petitioner . A letter dated 11.9.2009 at Annexure-5 to the writ application reflects that issues for reconcilement of accounts appear to be pending. There is no need for this Court to go into blame game between the parties as the respondents have placed that after settlement of accounts, on 16.8.2011 they have deposited the entire amount of Rs. 47,553.00 in his bank account in the State Bank of India, Purnia . On 17.08.2011 a sum of Rs. 1950/- has been repaid by the petitioner 2 to the respondents by cheque as the un-reconciled amount . That clinches the controversy in the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount found due as it can clearly be said to have been wrongly retained by the respondents. He relies upon a decision reported in 2008(2) PLJR (SC) 128 ( S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana) to submit that this court in writ jurisdiction can grant interest where monetary benefits were wrongly denied. Counsel for the Sate raises the claim that the State in that event shall also be entitled to the interest. In the case of S.K. Dua (Supra) the facts were not controverted by any justification for not making the payment when the charges were not found proved in the departmental proceedings which were dropped and still pension was not paid in time. In the present case the matter related to reconcilement of accounts. It is not a case where the petitioner was denied his retrial benefit. Ultimately on accounting, it was found that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1950/- also and which he did. Had it been clear case of money withheld by the respondents with no justification whatsoever for it in the law, matters would have been entirely different. Reconciliation of accounts can certainly be a valid justification for withholding payment more so when after reconcilement it was found that the petitioner was also liable to refund. The court therefore holds on the facts of the present 3 case that no claim for interest has been made out by the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. M.Rahman (Navin Sinha, J)