IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1410 of 2010 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa, District- Saharsa. …Respondents- Appellants. Versus Arun Kumar Deo, S/o Late Radha Prasad Deo, resident of Village- Bihra, P.S.- Bihra, District.- Saharsa. ……Petitioner- Respondent. ----------- 02- 24.8.2011 Heard Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General No.3 for the appellants, and Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh for the respondent. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1489 of 2010 (Arun Kumar Deo vs. The State of Bihar & ors.), whereby the writ petition has been allowed with the direction to make payment of arrears of salary, namely, Rs.2,89,561/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% from the dates the amounts became due till the date of payment, and exemplary cost quantified at Rs.50,000/-. The State of Bihar raises a grievance that, in the facts and 2 circumstances of the case, interest and cost may not have been awarded to the writ petitioner. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner was appointed as a matric untrained teacher on 15.9.1970, in Middle School, Sinhoul, a Government-aided school. The State legislature placed on the statute book the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976, whereby the Municipal schools were taken over with effect from 1.1.1971, and the Government-aided schools were taken over with effect from the date the Managing Committee handed over control of the school to the State Government. 3. There was initially a controversy whether or not the writ petitioner’s service could be taken over by the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that he was a minor at the time of his appointment on 15.9.1970. There was also a controversy with respect to payment of arrears of salary, as also the date with effect from which it was payable. These issues generated a number of writ petitions in this Court and, on each occasion, this Court had directed the writ petitioner to file representation before 3 the appropriate authorities. However, ultimately the position crystallised to the effect that the writ petitioner’s service was declared to be valid, and was entitled to salary from 1.8.1973 to 31.12.2007. This is the position which emerges from the order of the learned Single Judge disposing of the present writ petition and not challenged by the State of Bihar. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is not a fit case in which interest and exemplary cost could have been awarded to the writ petitioner for the reason that the issues were very contentious, and the matter was ultimately decided on account of intervention of this Court covering at least four writ petitions. In other words, in his submission, the State Government did not delay the matter on account of inefficiency, inaction etc., and had objected to the claims of the writ petitioner on very valid grounds. 5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matter we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge granting interest to the writ petitioner. However, in the circumstances of the case, we expunge the direction for payment of cost because the entitlements of the 4 petitioner were not obstructed by the State Government for any Mala Fide reason, and issues were resolved after orders of the Court. The State of Bihar cannot be held guilty of harassment. 6. This appeal is allowed in part. (S K Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) S.K.Pathak/