IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6464 of 2006 Ahilya Sinha, wife of late Anant Prasad, Ex- Junior Engineer, Resident of Mani Road, Muradpur, Near Kali Asthan, Oppoosite Arvind Studio, Gaya. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Accountant General (A & E )- II, Bihar Patna. 3. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner-cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Gaya. 6. Block Development Officer, Paraiya Block, Gaya. 7. Treasury Officer, Gaya. -Respondents. ----------- 3 06.12.2010 By order dated 10.11.2010, this Court had expressed anguish upon the delay caused in grant of ACP to the petitioner’s late husband, which was granted by the State but not being given effect to at the level of the Block Development Officer, Paraiya, Gaya. This Court further expressed as to why in spite of four years having gone by, no counter affidavit had been filed. The B.D.O was thus directed to present in Court with affidavit explaining all his details on 6th December 2010. As usual neither the B.D.O is personally present nor in the counter affidavit explaining the delay is given rather an appearance is given as if payments had been already made and the delay was occasioned because of some excess payment was made in the year 2002. I regret the callous attitude of the respondent and in particular the B.D.O concerned. It is not in dispute now that the petitioner’s late husband become entitled to the time bond promotion in the year 1983 and consequentially enhancement of his remuneration. It is - 2 - not in dispute that the petitioner is died in harness and even though Government sanctioned this promotion. The respondents chose to ignore the rights of the petitioner and ultimately forcing her to come to this Court. By Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it is stated that the amounts become due and payable. Annexure-F further reveals that though the entitlement of petitioner’s husband was ceased with his death in harness in the year 2000. The calculations giving effect to this promotion were done for first time on 12.8.2010 and pursuant, thereto, a cheque was prepared dated 30.8.2010 but handed over to the petitioner only on 22.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.1,84,906/- .Thus, admittedly, as per the State itself, this amount was due and payable to the petitioner in the year 2000 itself and had been held back for absolutely no justifiable reason. A pretence of justification is sought to be given in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the audit in the year 2002 ( two years after death of the employee) it is pointed out that an amount of Rs 8,870 was paid excess to the petitioner’s husband which was recovered from the family pension payable to the petitioner on 20.12.2003. It would thus be seen that the dues were calculated in December 2002 and recovered in December 2003 and the dues of paltry amount of Rs 8,870. I do not go into the question whether this could at all be done much less without a proceeding in the matter but this certainly was no excuse not to finalize the effect of ACP, which was due in 1983 itself as is being done in 2010. - 3 - In that view of the matter I hope that the cheque aforesaid has been duly honored for payment. I further direct that by way of compensation and exemplary cost petitioner must be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the time this payment was due till the time payment was made. I also direct the State that this payment of interest must be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate Gaya, and it shall be open to the State to realize the said amount from any officer or officers found responsible for the delay. With these observations and directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)