IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11754 of 2006 (DR.)N.L.JHA, son of Late Jagdish Jah, resident of mohalla – Kashipur, P.S. Samastipur town, District Samastipur …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna …… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate For the State : A.C. to S.C. 18 ------ 2 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks direction for payment of interest on delayed payment of arrears of his salary as well as retiral benefit. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the dues in lieu of his promotion in the Super Time Scale in the pay scale of Rs. 4300 – 5550/-, which has been granted to him with retrospective effect from 1.3.1993. Petitioner has approached this Court for the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 14 of 1999 which was disposed of on - 2 - 19.1.2000, a copy of which is appended as Annexure 1 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f. 1st March, 1993. Learned Single Judge of this Court has noticed in the aforesaid order that no departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule was initiated against the petitioner, till his retirement. A charge sheet has been given to the petitioner for initiation of proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules that too was in respect of allegations regarding unauthorized absence only. As such ultimately in January 2004 after much delay the said promotion was granted to the petitioner. However, the payment has been made vide authorization slip as contained in Annexure 4 dated 16.2.2006 showing authorization of payment of arrears from 22.1.1992 to 30.11.1997. Obviously there has been much delay in such payment. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no statutory provision for payment of - 3 - interest. However, he fairly admits that much delay has been committed in payment of dues. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has filed a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 14.4.2006 itself but the same has not been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in 2004(1) PLJR 158 (Ram Sumer Ahair v. The Union of India & Ors.) and also decisions of the Apex Court rendered in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and Anr (2008 AIR SCW 689) and (2008 (3) SCC 44 (S.K.Dua v. The State of Haryana & anr.) to show that even if there is no statutory provision, for delayed payment, interest can be directed to be paid. However, in view of the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of by the respondent no. 2, this writ application is being disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 2 that if the petitioner files a fresh representation in this regard within six weeks, the - 4 - same should be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law and also taking into consideration of all the provisions and law laid down as aforesaid by the Courts within three months by the respondent no. 2. If the petitioner is found entitled for payment of interest the same should be paid to him within two months thereafter. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)