Md. Hafeez v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.972 of 2025 ====================================================== Md. Hafeez S/o Abdul Rajjak Resident of Sangi Masjid, Lal Miyan Ka Dargah, P.O. and P.S.- Fulwari Sharif, Distt.-Patna- 801505. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Backward Classes and Extremely Backward Classes Welfare Department, Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna. 2.

The Director, Backward Classes and Extremely Backward Classes Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna, O/o The Commissioner, Patna Region, (Backward and Extremely Backward Classes Welfare Branch), Patna. 3.

The District Welfare Officer, Patna.

4.

The Sub Divisional Welfare Officer, Patna City. 5.

The Accountant General, (A and E), Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Hemant Kumar Karan, Advocate Mr. Parijat Karan, Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP-16 Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GP-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the dues arising out of the difference in ACP benefits along with interest.

3. Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the differential amount of ACP, i.e., Rs. 3,02,557/-, has been paid and received by the petitioner. He

Patna High Court CWJC No.972 of 2025(3) dt.23-06-2026 2/2 submits that the present grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to the grant of annual interest at the rate of 12 per cent.

4. Upon a specific query by the Court as to whether there is any provision for payment of statutory interest on delayed payment of ACP benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware of any such provision.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in payment of the arrears occurred only because the requisite allotment could not be made earlier, however, as soon as the allotment was made, the due amount was paid to the petitioner.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, and considering that there is no provision for grant of statutory interest on delayed payment of ACP benefits, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U