IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No. 1420 of 2011
===================================================
Radhey Shyam Pandey, son of Sri Kailash Pati Pandey, Resident of
Village - Papaur, P.S. - Pacharukhi, District - Siwan, presently posted as
Assistant Engineer, Master Planning, Investigation and Hydrology Circle
- II, Deoghar, Jharkhand ............................................ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar
3. The Deputy Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Bihar,
4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Bihar,
5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Govt. of Bihar
................................... Respondents.
===================================================
APPEARANCE
For the petitioner: Mr. Manager Sah, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. D.K. Prasad, G.P VII.
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2. 25.01.2011. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the State
of Bihar, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution to claim interest over the sum of Rs. 58,065/-
being the amount of arrears of salary and the traveling
allowance for the period from 16.04.1989 to 07.05.1990
paid to him on 22.10.2008.
The claim deserves to be rejected on the principle
analogous to Explanation V to Section 11 C.P.C. The
2
petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the same
subject matter in CWJC No. 535 of 2002. While deciding
the said petition this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J, as he then was) by order
dated 19.05.2008 directed the State Government to
consider the claim and to pay the amount due. Learned
Advocate Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary has appeared for the writ
petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner did ask for
payment of interest over the amounts of arrears of salary
and the traveling allowance. He candidly admits that the
said relief was not granted vide order dated 19.05.2008.
In my opinion the claim for interest now raised in
the present petition is barred by Explanation V to Section
11 CPC which reads as under:
“Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the
plaint, which is not expressly granted by the
decree, shall, for the purposes of this section,
be deemed to have been refused.”
For the aforesaid reason the petition is dismissed
in limine.
( R.M. Doshit, CJ )
Dilip