JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief (s). i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary for the period of 2 and 1/2 years during which he was lying ill. ii. For payment of increment for the year 1990-91 for two years. iii. For payment of interest on delayed payment of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998. 3. In course of submission, learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar informs that as already indicated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner's grievance in respect of relief no. I has already been redressed in as much as, payment has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that during the pendency of this writ application, relief no. i as claimed by the petitioner, has been redressed. 4. As regards the second relief, counsel for the respondent State of Bihar explains that the matter was held up awaiting report from the office of the Accountant General and since after receipt of the report, payment towards increment for the period of two years, as claimed by the petitioner, has also been sanctioned and the concerned authorities of the respondents have been directed to pay the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instruction as to whether the payment towards the second relief has been received by the petitioner up-till now or not. 5. As regards the third relief, learned counsel for the respondents submits that that there was certainly delay of five years in payment of salary to the petitioner, but such delay was not intentional as it had occurred on account of the fact that there were several cases pending against the petitioner and in one of such cases, the petitioner was even convicted and sentenced by the criminal court. However, the payments have since been released to the petitioner. 6. As it appears, the payment to which the petitioner was legitimately entitled, could not have been with held merely because, some cases were pending against him. The explanation given for the delay does not appear to be satisfactory enough. The respondents are certainly liable to compensate the petitioner for delayed payment, at least, by paying him a reasonable amount of interest on the principal amount. 7. The explanation given for the delay does not appear to be satisfactory enough. The respondents are certainly liable to compensate the petitioner for delayed payment, at least, by paying him a reasonable amount of interest on the principal amount. 7. Considering the above facts, concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar are directed to pay interest on the total amount of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998 at the rate of 5% per annum, calculated from the date when payments fell due, till the date of final payment. If the petitioner has any further grievance, he would be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar and if any such representation is filed, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State of Bihar.