Disposed

Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Sept 2020CWJC/4873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order, the Patna High Court addressed a claim for interest on delayed pension and dues. The court denied interest on initial delay but held interest was justified only if specific dues paid under a prior judgment within three months. Disposing the petition due to lack of accurate figures, it directed a respondent to take a decision within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with direction to respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision on the dues within 15 days.

Uday Shankar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4873 of 2020

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Uday Shankar Prasad S/o Late Chaturbhuj Sahay, Resident of A- 304, Millennium Home Appartment, Sheikhpura, P.S. Sheikhpura, Patna- 800014.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Finance Commissioner Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Parishad , Patna.

¶7

The Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raghwendra Kumar (Sc22) ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 22-09-2020

¶14

On the request of the respondents, the case was adjourned for 7.9.2020, unfortunately no counter affidavit has been filed in the present case.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2011 and he was paid pension in the month of July, 2012 The difference of pension, gratuity and leave encashment was paid to the petitioner in December, 2016 and as such the petitioner is entitled to 5 per cent interest.

¶16

So far as payment of pension is concerned, the Court finds that there is no inordinate delay as the petitioner retired in July 2011 and payment was made in July, 2012 and therefore, the claim as to payment of interest is baseless and not

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.4873 of 2020(3) dt.22-09-2020 2/3

¶18

justified.

¶19

So far as the difference of amount is concerned, his claim on difference, payment was made only after adjudication by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19677 of 2012 vide judgment dated 20.8.2016. After the date of 20.8.2016 the dispute as to entitlement was adjudicated, therefore, up to 20.8.2016 the claim for difference of payment was pending before the High Court. The Court in the aforesaid facts of the case is of the considered view that the aforesaid period cannot be taken as belated delay on the part of the respondents in making the payment of difference and consequently entitled the petitioner to claim interest if the payment was not made within three months from 26.8.2016. If the payment was made to the petitioner before 20.11.2016 the petitioner shall not be entitled to payment of any interest. In the event, the petitioner has been paid after 20.11.2016 then the petitioner should be justified in claiming interest.

¶20

Since the writ petition itself does not contain any accurate facts and figures, the Court is not in a position to issue any positive direction. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to take appropriate

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.4873 of 2020(3) dt.22-09-2020 3/3

¶22

decision within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

The entitlement of the interest from the date of filing of C.W.J.C. No. 19677 of 2012 is justified if the difference of post retiral dues have not been paid in terms of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19677 of 2012 dated 20.8.2016 within a period of three months from 20.8.2016.

¶24

It is made clear that the entitlement of the interest is only permissible if the payment has not been made to the petitioner within three months in terms of the order dated 20.8.2016 are not otherwise.

¶25

With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶27

Ravi/-

¶28

Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalbabu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Awadh Kishore Prasad Vs Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd.

Madhuri Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Nazra Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Muskan Associates Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Vishwakarma Vs The State of Bihar