SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is the wife of late Bameshwar Sharma, who died while serving as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government on 26.10.2000. She has filed this writ application challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary to the State Government, bearing letter No. 534 dated 21.2.2008, Annexure -6, whereunder her request for grant of interest over the arrears of monetary benefit in the light of promotion order, bearing memn No. 2349 dated 17.9.1997, promoting Sri Bameshwar Sharma on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 21.10.1982, has been considered in the light of the order dated 2.12.2005, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6711 of 2004, Annexure -3 and rejected holding that husband of the petitioner has been allowed monetary benefits of promotion with effect from 21.10.1982 under reasoned order, bearing no. 1095 dated 4.5.2007 in the light of the order dated 2.12.2005, Annexure -3 in which there is no direction to pay interest over the arrears of promotional dues and the husband of the petitioner being not a party to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997 disposed of under order dated 10.4.1997, Annexure -1 and other analogous matters, she cannot raise claim for payment of interest over delayed payment of arrears of promotional benefit. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Dua V/s. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 44, paragraphs 13 to 17 and with reference to the observations made by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, it is submitted that it is the duty of the High Court to consider the payment of interest over delayed payment of retiral dues, including arrears of promotional dues as after the death of the service holder, the arrears of promotional dues also becomes part of the retiral dues. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua (supra). This case, however, is not covered by the ratio decidendi laid down in the said judgment as the husband of the petitioner having earned promotion under order, bearing Memo No. 2349 dated 17.9.1997 with effect from 21.10.1982, never agitated the matter that the monetary benefit in the light of the promotion order should relate back to the date of promotion i.e. 21.10.1982. This Court, however, under order dated 2.12.2005, Annexure -3 at the instance of the petitioner declared that her husband was entitled to the benefit of the promotinal post with effect from 21.10.1982 and to settle the pension/family pension on that basis. The authorities, however, were kind enough to pay the petitioner arrears of promotional benefit under reasoned order, bearing No. 1095 dated 4.5.2007 referred to in the impugned order dated 21.2.2008, Annexure -6. In the circumstances, at this belated stage, petitioner, in my opinion, cannot claim for interest on the delayed payment of arrears of promotional benefit and I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department dated 21.2.2008, Annexure -6 and the writ petition is dismissed.