IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4133 of 2004
Vincent Barahi Toppo Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department, Patna
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi-cum-Bihar, Patna
5. District Provident Fund Officer, Ranchi Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.K. Sinha, Advocate
For the State of Bihar: Mr. S.P. Roy, GA, Bihar
For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. D.K. Dubey, SC (Mines)
---
5.01.02.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief (s).
i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay him
salary for the period of 2 and ½ years during which he was lying
ill.
ii. For payment of increment for the year 1990-91 for two years.
iii. For payment of interest on delayed payment of salary for the
period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998.
3. In course of submission, learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar informs
that as already indicated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner’s grievance in respect of
relief no. I has already been redressed in as much as, payment has been sanctioned and
paid to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that during the pendency of this writ
application, relief no. i as claimed by the petitioner, has been redressed.
4. As regards the second relief , counsel for the respondent State of Bihar explains
that the matter was held up awaiting report from the office of the Accountant General
and since after receipt of the report, payment towards increment for the period of two
years, as claimed by the petitioner, has also been sanctioned and the concerned
authorities of the respondents have been directed to pay the same to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instruction as to whether
the payment towards the second relief has been received by the petitioner up-till now or
not.
5. As regards the the third relief, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
that there was certainly delay of five years in payment of salary to the petitioner, but
such delay was not intentional as it had occurred on account of the fact that there were
several cases pending against the petitioner and in one of such cases, the petitioner was
even convicted and sentenced by the criminal court. However, the payments have since
been released to the petitioner.
6. As it appears, the payment to which the petitioner was legitimately entitled, could
not have been withheld merely because, some cases were pending against him. The
explanation given for the delay does not appear to be satisfactory enough. The
respondents are certainly liable to compensate the petitioner for delayed payment, at
least, by paying him a reasonable amount of interest on the principal amount.
7. Considering the above facts, concerned authorities of the respondent State of
Bihar are directed to pay interest on the total amount of salary for the period 1.11.1993
to 31.10.1998 at the rate of 5% per annum, calculated from the date when payments fell
due, till the date of final payment.
If the petitioner has any further grievance, he would be at liberty to file a fresh
representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar and if
any such representation is filed, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall
consider the same and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking
order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State of Bihar.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/