IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6118 of 2005
Sarla Rohilla, wife of Sri Gajendra Singh, resident of Road No.14, East
Indrapuri, P.O.-Keshari Nagar, P.S.-Patliputra, District-Patna. -Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through the Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar,
Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Patna. -Respondents.
-----------
07 04.04.2011 Pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, this
writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought three
reliefs. First, for delayed payment of salary. Petitioner claims
interest for delayed payment of provident fund. Secondly, she
claims interest finally and thirdly she claims payment of salary for
one month with commensurate credit of provident fund.
Having considered the matter, in my view, petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. For whatsoever relief she was entitled,
she has already been granted.
Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in the year 2002
for payment of salary which had been claimed since about 1992 in
the writ petition. This Court refused the relief. Her services were,
however, permitted to be continued. Upon her acquiring requisite
qualification, she had to be regularized and payments made against
this. She preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was disposed of in
the year 2003, whereby the order of the Single Judge of this Court
was set aside and it was held that petitioner’s services could not be
held to be irregular and, further, she was held entitled to full salary.
It was, accordingly, ordered. At that stage petitioner did not pray
-2-
for interest on delayed payment of salary or on the delayed
payment of provident fund which is tagged with the salary. It was
also not so ordered. That being so, no fresh writ petition is
maintainable for a relief which petitioner could have and ought to
have prayed for in the earlier writ petition itself but failed to pray.
However, I may observe that for delayed credit in
provident fund account there are provisions for payment of interest
statutorily. Respondent-State would be liable to pay those statutory
interests for which no directions are required from the Court as it is
statutory obligation.
So far as one month salary is concerned, in the counter
affidavit it is stated and petitioner does not deny that it has since
been paid with commensurate credit of provident fund in her
account. Thus, there remains no relief to be granted.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)