High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Dr.Ramnandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 10 July, 2008

Patna High Court – Orders
Dr.Ramnandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 10 July, 2008
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    MJC No.2404 of 2006
                 DR.RAMNANDAN PRASAD
                          Versus
                     STATE OF BIHAR
                         -----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondents : G.P. 11

——–

PRESENT

Hon’ble the Chief Justice
&
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad

——-

Dated, the 10th July, 2008

The contempt alleged is that of the order passed on 4 th

May, 2006. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“Owing to the nature of the grievance of the petitioner and
in absence of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents, in my opinion, the petitioner may represent his
case before the Secretary of the Department, namely,
respondent no. 2 for redressal of his grievances giving
details of the period for payment of arrears of salary. The
representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, however, shall
be considered and disposed of by speaking order in light of
the admissions of the parties, as shown in Annexure 16
within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the
representation. In case, respondent no. 2 would be satisfied
that arrears of salary are legally payable to the petitioner,
he shall direct for payment of the same and permissible
interest forthwith from the date of passing of the order.”

2. Show cause has been filed by the Opposite party no. 2

and a case has been set up that the due salary has been paid.

3. That the due salary has been paid to the petitioner, is
-2-

not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. He, however, submits

that although in the order dated 4th May, 2006 permissible interest was

ordered, no interest has been paid.

4. We are afraid, the grievance of the petitioner is

misconceived. The order dated 4th May, 2006 does not specifically say

that on delayed payment of due salary interest shall be paid. The

direction is that payment of salary be made and permissible interest be

paid. Nothing has been shown that on delayed payment of salary,

interest is permissible. We are, thus, satisfied that nothing further

needs to be done in the contempt petition.

5. M.J.C. stands disposed of.

R.M. Lodha, CJ

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.

Anil/