Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 422 (PAT)

Shashilata Verma v. State Of Bihar

2003-04-15

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2003
Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 19 February 2003 on CWJC No. 13089 of 2002 : Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Lata Verma V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. The contention on the appeal is that this court may award further interest on the entire amount which may be due than has been given as referred to in the last paragraph of the impugned order. 3. The court is surprised that a letters patent appeal has been filed to virtually challenge an order which is in favour of the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant had filed a petition earlier being CWJC. No. 7525 of 1993 in which an order was passed during the month when it was filed, that for all the dues, which may be available to the petitioner-appellant, she may file a representaton. If the dues be found delayed in payment then the petitioner- appellant was entitled to interest at the rate of 12 percent as mentioned in that order. Subsequently, the petitioner-appellant filed a contempt petition numbered as MJC. No. 190 of 1994. In this petition the defence of the Jai Prakash University is that the petitioner-appellant had not worked under that University for a single day and, therefore, whatever dues to which she is entitled that is to be paid by the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. Thereafter another contempt petition was filed. On this petition the court by its order dated 24 October, 2002 was of the view that it was not a matter of contempt but may be one of adjudication. The petitioner-appellant then filed CWJC No. 13089 of 2002. 4. The court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and also has perused the record of the letters patent appeal as also the writ petition. In the writ petition lies a counter affidavit, which the court has perused carefully. 5. After having read the counter affidavit, the court is of the opinion that issues raised in the counter affidavit are such that it cannot be said that the petitioner-appellant was entitled to interest. In the circumstances, while the order on the writ petition dated 19 February, 2003 may remain but the aspect of providing interest at the rate of 12 percent is set aside. 6. Dismissed.