Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1318 (PAT)

Lilawati Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-09

S.K.KATRIAR

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma for the petitioner, and learned JC to Government Pleader No. 11. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant to her the following monetary benefits: (i) The pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- as Junior Sister Teacher with effect from the dates her juniors have been getting the same since 1992; and (ii) to pay the salary due from 30.3.1996 to 1.4.1998, during the period she was posted in the Secretariat. 2. The respondents have placed on record the counter affidavit and have supported the petitioners claim. 3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. This is the petitioners third attempt in this Court, and the chequered history of the litigation makes me extremely unhappy. Routine matters of administration have travelled to this Court thrice and yet the full benefits, though conceded by the respondents in the last round of litigation, has not yet been flown to the petitioner. The petitioner is a Nurse Grade "A" in the service of the Bihar Government. She was at an earlier stage denied promotion to the post of Junior Sister Tutor with effect from the date her juniors had been granted sometime in 1992. Her repeated approaches to the respondent authorities were of no avail leading to CWJC No. 10418 of 1995, which was disposed of by order dated 20.3.96 (Annexure 1). The respondent authorities took the stand that the persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted with effect from 11.12.92, but her case could not be considered because her service record was not available to them for reasons entirely attributable to the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.3.96 (Annexure 1), whereby the respondent authorities were directed to take final decision within three months. The final decision was not taken leading to contempt application in this Court bearing MJC No. 113 of 1997. The same was disposed of by order dated 15.3.99 (Annexure 2), whereby the Court took a lenient view of the matter and gave another opportunity to the respondent authorities to finalise the matter within two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The matter has since been finalised and the steps indicated hereinafter have been taken in favour of the petitioner. 4. The matter has since been finalised and the steps indicated hereinafter have been taken in favour of the petitioner. By Order No. 55(6), dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure B), passed by respondent no. 2 (Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna), the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Junior Sister Tutor with effect from 11.12.92 with money benefits, the date from which the person next to her was promoted. It further appears from the counter affidavit that a sum of Rs. 89, 440/- has been sanctioned for payment for the period 15.11.2000 to December 2006 and after deducting income tax, Rs. 79,440/- has been made over to the petitioner, a position duly acknowledged by her. 5. It further appears from the counter affidavit that the differential amount of salary for the period 11.12.92 to 14.11.2000, and the salary from 30.3.96 to 1.4.98, have been calculated for which requisition has been made and payment shall be made as soon as the funds are made available. It is thus manifest that the claims of the petitioner has been sanctioned by the respondents part of the payment has been released, and the balance is yet to be released. Let the same be released expeditiously. 6. I must now deal with the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for payment of interest on the delayed payments. The position is manifest that the petitioner was denied the promotion for reasons entirely attributable to the respondent authorities, harassing her no end and burdening this court with most unwanted and completely unavoidable matters. The petitioner has been required to approach this Court thrice, the respondent authorities did not contest the matter at all on all the three occasions, and the petitioner has suffered entirely on account of inaction, inefficiency and callousness of the respondent authorities. The benefits ought to have accrued to the petitioner in 1992 or 1993, has not yet been fully materialised even after three rounds of litigation in this Court, and lapse of 14 to 15 years. No attempt at all has been made to explain the repeated litigations in this Court. The respondent authorities have not found so many years and two orders of this Court adequate for the purpose. The petitioner is, therefore, undoubtedly entitled to payment of interest. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to ensure payment of lawful dues to the petitioner. The respondent authorities have not found so many years and two orders of this Court adequate for the purpose. The petitioner is, therefore, undoubtedly entitled to payment of interest. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to ensure payment of lawful dues to the petitioner. The entire dues of the petitioner already paid in part or yet to be paid, shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of her entitlement till the date of payment. If the same is not paid within a period of three months from today, she shall thereafter be entitled to interest @ 12% till the date of payment. The petitioner shall also be supplied with details of calculation. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this writ petition quantified at Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand), all to be paid in one instalment. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Govt. Pleader No. 11.