IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12701 of 2006 MANJU KUMARI, widow of Late Krishan Mohan Srivastava, a resident of village Gobind bara, P.O. & P.S. Fenhara, District East Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner cum Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Department of Public Health Engineering, Bihar, Patna 2. The finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 2. 4.5.2010 Heard Mr. A.B.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State as also the Accountant General. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application toward family pension, permanent gratuity, leave encashment etc. have been redressed but then the petitioner was also entitled to a sum of 5% of interest from the date of entitlement to the date of payment in terms of the circular of the Finance Department towards delay in payment of retirement benefit. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it has 2 been shown that after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 1.1.2005 the papers for sanctioning of family pension and gratuity have been received on 14.11.2006 and the authorization was made on 11.12.2006. In the separate counter affidavit showing such payment received by the petitioner it also appears that certain payment was received by her on 12.4.2005. Further from the letter of the Superintending Engineer dated 25.8.2006 it would appear that the provisional pension was also fixed and detail of calculation of provident fund given as per calculation sheet in the counter affidavit would also bear it out that the payments were made to the petitioner even on that head well in time i.e. on 8.3.2006 as is evident from her signature on the voucher showing such payment. The payment of leave encashment was also made on 8.11.2006 and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there has been any exorbitant or undue delay so as to make the petitioner entitled to receive any payment of interest on account of her dues after the death of her husband. 3 That being so, the prayer for interest in this writ application on retirement dues of the husband is wholly misconceived and this application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/