1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9480 of 2005 RAMESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 18.03.2010 Heard Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned assisting counsel to the Advocate General. The petitioner claims payment of statutory interest under the Government Circular as contained in Memo No. PC 1-46/79/3155 dated 7.11.1981 providing for payment of interest at the rate of 5 per cent on delayed payment of pension including family pension and death-cum-retiral gratuity. The petitioner superannuated as a Super Selection Grade, Head Assistant from the office of District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya with effect from 31.1.1998 and upon non-payment of his post retiral dues, he moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 1998 and which was disposed of vide order dated 11.5.1998 with a direction to the authorities to make payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. The non-compliance of the direction of this Court forced the petitioner to file a contempt application giving rise to M.J.C. No. 879 of 1999 and which was disposed of vide order dated 11.5.1999 granting further time to the authorities to make payment to the petitioner within a period of two months. The petitioner had to move again for the reason that the authorities did not comply with the directions even 2 passed in the contempt jurisdiction giving rise to M.J.C. No. 3092 of 1999. It is at this stage that the respondent came up with an order of recovery by canceling his earlier promotions. The contempt application was disposed of on 30.11.1999 giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the said order. The order of recovery and cancellation of promotion was challenged through C.W.J.C. No. 11777 of 1999 and which was allowed by order dated 5.9.2002 (Annexure-1), whereby the order of recovery and cancellation of promotion was set aside and directions were issued for payment within three months. The respondents still did not comply with the directions and chose to assail the order of learned single judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal giving rise to L.P.A. No. 81 of 2003 and which was dismissed by order dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure-2). The respondents not being satisfied challenged the order of learned single judge and the Division Bench by filing a Special Leave Petition and which was also dismissed on 1.8.2003 (Annexure- 2/A). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having delayed the payment of the retiral benefits of the petitioner for a period of almost five years, the respondents chose to make payment of the same only after a lapse of almost five years on 5.4.2003 and the remaining amount on 5.5.2003. He thus submits that as the retiral dues of the petitioner stood withheld at the hands of the respondents for a period of more 3 than five years, he is entitled to interest as set out in the Government Circular referred to above. Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned assisting counsel to Advocate General representing the State opposes the claim of the petitioner and submits that as the issue was under the consideration by the Court, hence it is not one of such cases which warrants imposition of interest. He submits that had it been a case of culpable delay, then undoubtedly the petitioner was entitled for interest in terms of the Government Circular but since the time consumed was due to pending Court cases, hence the claim set out by the petitioner is not reasonable and it is more in the nature of money claim and should not be accepted. I have heard the rival contentions of the respective parties and considered the materials available on record. The sequence of events as set out hereinabove undoubtedly shows that delay has been caused at the level of the authorities. Had it been a case in which the admissible dues of the petitioner been paid to him within a reasonable time with possible disputed amounts withheld for payment subject to resolution of the issue, then the matter would have been different but the petitioner having superannuated on 31.1.1998, for the first time gathered knowledge regarding any dispute in relation to his service benefits, when he moved this Court for the second time in contempt jurisdiction for payment of his retiral benefits. The order being set aside, the respondents further chose to assail the 4 validity of the same before the Division Bench and before the Supreme Court but did not succeed. Thus respondents thus having taken a calculated chance, cannot resile from their duty of payment of interest as per their own circulars, for the delay caused to the petitioner. In view of the circumstances, it is an appropriate case for interest in the light of the Government Circular aforesaid. The petitioner shall raise his claim for interest on the belated payments of pension and gratuity and the commutation of pension amounts in the light of the circular dated 7.11.1981 prescribing interest @ 5% per annum until the date of payment, before the authority concerned and who shall consider and make payment of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)