 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO.521 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2007. M/s. Prabhu Constructions Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, office at 19, Dharampeth Extn., Shankar Nagar Sq. Nagpur through its Director, Prabhubhai Jadhavji Rathod. .... PETITIONER . // VERSUS // 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, through Secretary, New Delhi. 2. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.A.Abhyankar, Advocate for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2008. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Abhyankar, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents. 2. Order of this Court dated 22nd August, 2008 is under challenge in this review petition.  3. When Writ Petition No.839/2000 was disposed of by this Court, the counsel for the respondent i.e. original petitioner in the said petition had made a statement that the petitioner Union of India, Ministry of Railways had no claim towards the interest accruing on the F.D.R. that was submitted by the present review petitioner, as the amount under the F.D.R. belongs to the present review petitioner, but then that was taken by way of security. On the basis of the said statement this Court made an order that since the review petitioner had liability of the respondent herein of Rs.Twenty Thousand which he should discharge by making payment thereof in cash and upon such deposit the respondent would handover the F.D.R. with no objection for releasing the amount of interest accrued on the F.D.R. as well as principal amount under the F.D.R. Since the counsel for the respondent expressed anxiety that the review petitioner who claims interest accrued on the F.D.R. may not additionally demand interest from the Union of India, it was clarified that the review petitioner was not entitled to any such additional claim from the Union of India. To say that the review petitioner shall not be entitled to interest accrued on his own F.D.R. after he receives it back despite making payment of said cash amount of Rs.Twenty Thousand would be absurd as the principal amount under the F.D.R. admittedly belonged to the petitioner and the liability of the petitioner was not more than Rs.Twenty  Thousand, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already discharged the same after passing of the order in the petition on 22.08.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of this order when he deposited cash amount of Rs.Twenty Thousand and when he was handed over F.D.R. he found that the F.D.R. that was submitted by him on 01.06.1988 was never renewed and then he realised that the review petitioner would not get any interest w.e.f. 01.09.1988 till this date. But then this fact about non-renewal was not disclosed when the order in the writ petition was passed at the behest of original petitioner and now the respondent Union of India. 4. In my opinion, this appears to be a clear negligence on the part of the respondent Union of India in not renewing the F.D.R. and thereby putting the review petitioner to a huge monetary loss. It appears that because of negligence of the concerned officials this loss is caused. When the respondent Union of India took the responsibility of taking F.D.R. from the review petitioner by way of security it was their duty to get it renewed from time to time till return thereof. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner refused to give consent for renewal of the F.D.R. But then there is no reason why the review petitioner should suffer for the negligence of the concerned persons in the respondent's  office. At the same time, there is no reason why Union of India, Ministry of Railways should suffer for this negligence of its officers. Hence, I make the following order. i) Review Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and order is modified. iii) Respondent Union of India shall pay interest prevailing from time to time, applicable to F.D.R. from 01.09.1988 onwards, till actual payment to the review petitioner, within eight weeks from today. iv) The respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.Two Thousand to the review petitioner. v) The respondent Union of India, Ministry of Railways is entitled to recover the said amount of interest as well as amount of costs by identifying the concerned person/ officer/ staff who did not get the F.D.R. renewed from time time. vi) The review petition is, thus, disposed of. JUDGE RR..