← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15811/2016disposed

Krishna Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15811 of 2016 ====================================================== Krishna Sah S/o Late Rameshwar Sah R/o Saidpur, Kachri Gali, P.S. - Kadamkuan, Patna 800004, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Chief Engineer, South Bihar (Communication) Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Treasury Officer, Secretariat Trasury, Visweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

6.

The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh For the State :

Mr. Uday Prasad, AC to GP 22 For A.G., Bihar :

Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. During the pendency of this application, it seems that the petitioner has been paid the post retiral benefits, as claimed in the writ application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is entitled for interest on gratuity because of delayed payment inasmuch as the petitioner was entitled to receive the said amount in July, 2014, but the said amount has been paid in July, 2017.

I leave it to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction

Patna High Court CWJC No.15811 of 2016(3) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 Department, Government of Bihar (respondent no. 3) to consider whether the petitioner should be allowed interest on gratuity amount because of delayed payment.

The only observation, which I intend to make at this point of time is that if there had been no latches on the part of the petitioner, which caused delay in payment of the gratuity amount, his claim for interest, at least at the rate payable in saving bank account, should be favourably considered by the respondent no. 3.

This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Prabhakar Anand/- U √