IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11410 of 2003 PROF.RAM NARESH PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11. 21.5.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A detailed supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University in the light of the orders passed in the present proceedings setting out the details of payments made to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings. A perusal thereof shows that almost all the payments have been received by the petitioner as back as in the year 2008 or before. There is no rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner controverting the statements made therein. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, raises an issue of payment of interest on the group insurance amount and the deferred D.A. amount which according to him has been paid at a lesser rate, in the light of the judicial pronouncement of a bench of this court reported in 2006(4) PLJR 369 (Dr. Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors). Learned counsel, with reference to the judgment (supra), submits that the petitioner is 2 entitled to a further amount by way of interest on group insurance and deferred D.A. amounts. He further submits that liberty may be accorded to the petitioner to raise his grievance, in case he feels aggrieved by any of the calculations before the appropriate authority of the University. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is subject matter of a Special Leave Petition pending for consideration before the Supreme Court and the matter is res integra. He thus submits that the interest claim of the petitioner would be governed by the final outcome of the proceedings pending consideration before the Supreme Court and in case the issue is decided in favour of the employees, the petitioner would also draw similar benefits. Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition need not be kept pending before this Court and the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner in case he feels aggrieved by any of the calculations made by the University to pursue his claim before the respondent no.4, the Registrar of the University together with 3 calculative details in support of his claim and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. The claim of the petitioner in relation to interest on Group Insurance and deferred D.A., would however be governed by the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)