IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7737 of 2010 KAPILESHWAR SAHAY S/O LATE S.N. SAHAY R/O MOHALLA- R.M.S. COLONY, P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NARIMAN POINT, CORPORATE OFFICE, MUMBAI, 64, MAHARASHTRA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-64, MAHARASHTRA 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, REGION-V, J.C. ROAD, PATNA-800001 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NETWORK-I, STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA ----------- 04. 23.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service of the Bank with effect from 19.10.2000, prior thereto he was holding the post of Manager in scale-3. He has filed this writ application for a direction to the Bank to pay him interest over delayed payment of arrears of salary and allowance accrued to him prior to the date of his compulsory retirement. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that delay in payment of arrears of salary arose as he was proceeded against and the punishment order passed against him was challenged by the petitioner, which was set aside by this Court under orders dated 5.5.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1233 of 2004, Annexure-1, against which the Bank preferred appeal bearing L.P.A.No.663 of 2004, which was also dismissed under orders dated 7.11.2006, Annexure-2 and on account of pendency of the writ application and the letters patent appeal the payment of arrears of salary and allowance was delayed without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that as the delay in payment of arrears of salary to the - 2 - petitioner has been caused by the Bank he is entitled for payment of interest over delayed payment of salary and allowance. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that under the Rules of the Bank interest over the delayed payment of arrears of salary and allowance is not admissible. He further states that interest over the provident fund and the gratuity amount of the petitioner has already been paid as per the Rules, as such, request of the petitioner for grant of interest over delayed payment of arrears of salary and allowance may be rejected. 5. I regret not to accept such submission. If the Bank has chosen to litigate in the case of the petitioner by passing illegal order, which was set aside by this Court, yet the Bank perused the matter in appeal against the order of the Single Judge which was also dismissed. In the circumstances, for the delay caused on account of fruitless litigation filed before this Court the Bank has to suffer interest. Accordingly, I direct that Bank should pay interest over delayed payment of arrears of salary and allowance to the petitioner at the rate which is admissible in the saving banks account from the date on which payment became due until the amount was credited in the account of the petitioner as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order before the Competent Authority of the Bank. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)