IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2591 of 2006 PROF.SURESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, son of Late Sachidanand Prasad Sinha, H. No. 34/C Kankarbagh Housing Colony, near Temp Stand, Kankarbagh, Patna- 20. Versus 1.TILAKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, Bhagalpur, through the Registrar, Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 2.The Vice Chancellor, Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 3.Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4.The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5.Principal, S.K.R. College, Barbigha, District Shekhpura. ----------- 2 9.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the University. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, direction/directions, order/ orders to the respondents to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner which is admitted payable to him (the petitioner) along with interest.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during pendency of this writ application, which was filed on 27.2.2006, certain payments admissible to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,69,786=90 paise has been made on 15.7.2006, but then the petitioner will also be entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it becomes due till its payment. In this context he places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of „S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr’ reported in 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 128 (SC) and on a judgment of this Court in the case of „Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) & Ors. Vs. Union 2 of India & Ors.‟ reported in 1994 B.L.J.R. page 307. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, having filed counter affidavit submits that it is not a case where payment of actual salary of the petitioner was not made rather certain arrears amount in terms of grant of U.G.C. pay scale and the difference of pay thereof could not be paid by the University on account of inadequate release of fund by the State Government. He has also explained that the State Government also was helpless because such grant is actually released by the U.G.C. which is actually passed on by it to the University. He, therefore, submits that the University does not have any resources of its own and cannot be saddled with the consequence of payment of interest on the arrears as per U.G.C. pay scale. In this case admittedly dues of the petitioner had started to accumulate from the year 1982 as per chart given by him in paragraph 7 of the writ application, which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- YEAR Arrear amount on account of Difference of salary (not paid to The petitioner. (Amount in Rs.) 1982 1, 258. 40 1983 2, 830. 00 1984 4, 945. 00 1985 8, 080. 00 1986 18,788.00 1987 19,906.00 1988 15,209.50 1989 19,048.50 1990 4,507.00 1991 7,427.00 1992 15,560.00 1993 22,407.00 1994 22,440.00 3 1995 7,380.00 Tota1,69,786.90 Total payment made by University on difference Dates:- 17,377.00 Net Payable Amount 1,52,409.90. As with regard to the aforesaid claim of arrears of salary of the years 1982 to 1995 the present writ application had been filed on 27.2.2006 and therefore if such belated money claim of the petitioner could not have been entertained by Civil Court in a money suit, a writ application cannot be made a substitute for such monetary claim. The University, in fact, having paid the amount which was available in those years to the tune of Rs. 17,377/- cannot be said to be defaulter. So as to be saddled for making payment of interest. the consequence of payment of interest could be fastened against the University, if it had despite receipt fo the amount from the State Government had not made such payment to the petitioner and had utilized it for other purpose. In the present case there is no such statement in the writ application that though the fund was released by the State Government to the University and the same was kept by the University while denying payment of salary to the petitioner. The petitioner had retired long back in the year 1995 and thereafter had chosen to file this writ application after eleven years for claiming his arrears of salary. In fact there is also no plea of discrimination alleged by the petitioner in this writ application, that while he was denied payment of such arrears others like him had already been paid the same. From the judgment relied by learned counsel for the 4 petitioner, this Court would find that in the case of Justice S.S. Sandhwalia (Retd.) (Supra) an issue arose as with regard to payment of certain retirement benefit including encashment of his leave salary and therefore the Apex Court had held that the since Government was required to tender such payment of such amount of retirement benefit to a retired Chief Justice, on the date of his retirement but it had not made such payment, and therefore it was bound to pay interest on such admitted amount of retirement benefit. this Court would fail to understand as to how the ratio of Justice Sandhwalia‟s case arising out of retirement benefit can be made applicable to the facts of present case relating to payment of arrears of difference of salary as per U.G.C. pay scale. Coming to the next case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, S.K. Dua (Supra), this Court would find that this also was a case of delayed payment of retirement benefit including pension and gratuity. In the case of pension, gratuity, apart from the statutory provision there is also an executive instruction laying down the entitlement of payment of interest on the admitted amount of retirement benefit. As noted above the present case is for only payment of arrear of salary and that too for payment of difference of pay on account of U.G.C. pay scale. In that view of the matter, the ratio as laid down in both the cases relied by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of present case. That being so, so far claim of payment of interest is 5 concerned, this Court would not find any merit in the same and infact this writ application, after payment of the admissible arrears of pay to the petitioner has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)