IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12050 of 2010 MOST. ASHA DEVI, W/O LATE CHANDRA KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILL.- SONEBHADRA, P.S.- KARPI, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JEHANABAD. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Naresh Dikshit with Mr. Kunal Tiwary For the S t a t e : Mr. Kumar Ravish ---------- 2. 3.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State. The grievance of the petitioner is that initially a sum of Rs.91,238/- was sought to be recovered from the husband of the petitioner, vide order dated 16.2.1996, as contained in Annexure 1, upon his superannuation from the service while working as Panchayat Sewak under the Block Development Officer, Karpi, District Jehanabad. The aforesaid order was assailed in this Court by the husband of the petitioner, vide CWJC No.3044 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to re-examine the matter. Thereupon a sum of Rs.53,072.63 was deducted from the retiral dues and the rest amounts were paid as would be appearing from the order dated 22nd of February, 1999 (Annexure 3) passed on the writ petition, vide CWJC No.7300 of 1998 filed by this petitioner. The said writ petition was allowed with a cost of Rs.2,000/- with further direction to pay the statutory interest on the amount found payable to the petitioner. 2 Pursuant to the above order, the matter was re- considered by the authority and disposed of by an order dated 25.11.1999, vide Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today. By the aforesaid order, recovery of Rs.53,072.63 from the retiral dues was held to be valid. Against the aforesaid order dated 25.11.1999, the petitioner again filed writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No.12122 of 2001, which was disposed of by an order dated 19th of November, 2008, as contained in Annexure 5. This Court, upon consideration, quashed the aforesaid order dated 25.11.1999 (Annexure 7) with direction that the outstanding dues, if not paid, may be paid to the petitioner as her rightful dues. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, as contained in Annexure 5, the authorities have refunded back the aforesaid amount of Rs.53,072.63 with cost of Rs.2,000/- as directed by this Court in its order dated 22nd of February, 1999, as contained in Annexure 3, as per the two cheques dated 2nd of February, 2010, as contained in Annexure A to the show cause filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid sum of Rs.53,072.63 has been refunded back to the petitioner after such a long delay and, as such, the authorities were obliged to pay the statutory interest over the amount as directed by this Court as per its order, as contained in Annexure 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other 3 hand, submits that on perusal of the order of this Court, as contained in Annexure 5, it would appear that there is no direction for payment of interest. However, he is not denying that as per the order of this Court, as contained in Annexure 3, the statutory interest was required to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order, as contained in Annexure 5, this Court has directed to pay the rightful dues of the petitioner and, as such, the rightful dues also includes reasonable interest. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the amount of Rs.53,000/- and odd has now been refunded back to the petitioner after a long delay and, as such, the claim of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount, which has been refunded back, should also carry interest cannot be said to be unjustified. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Jehanabad (respondent no.2) is directed to consider the quantum of interest over the aforesaid amount. The petitioner will be at liberty to make the appropriate claim in this regard before respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks. On receipt of such claim by way of representation, respondent no.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, which shall be disposed of by a reasoned order indicating the claim of the petitioner for interest as also the amount for the relevant period for which the same has been allowed. 4 The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations /directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)