Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Radhey Shyam Pandey on 6 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:30860-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 398 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
PO + PS - Doranda, Ranchi.
3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, PO + PS - Doranda, Ranchi.
4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, PO + PS - Doranda, Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Radhey Shyam Pandey, aged about 72 years, son of Late Kailash Pati
Pandey, resident of C/o Sri P.K. Srivastava, Ram Janki Path, North of
Kali Mandir, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Kankarbagh, District
- Patna.
... Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
---------
02/Dated: 06.10.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and for the
reasons stated in the present Interlocutory Application, we find
sufficient cause to condone the delay of 175 days that has crept into
filing the appeal.
2. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application is allowed and
the delay of 175 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2025:JHHC:30860-DB
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State.
4. The instant appeal has a chequered history.
5. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned
Writ Court.
6. The writ petitioner had earlier preferred W.P. (S) No. 420 of
2020 for grant of statutory interest on delayed payment admissible to
him on account of entire pensionery benefits including ACP benefits
and House Rent Allowance from 05.05.2000 to 05.07.2006, as the
petitioner had been duly exonerated of the charges that had been framed
against him.
7. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Writ
Court vide order dated 08.09.2021 directed the respondents (appellants
herein) to pay the interest on the entire pensionery benefits as well as
House Rent Allowance from the date it fell due till the date of its actual
payment.
8. The respondents unsuccessfully assailed the said order by filing
L.P.A. No. 385 of 2021 which came to be dismissed.
9. Since the respondents did not comply with the order passed by
the learned Writ Court as also affirmed in the aforesaid Letters Patent
Appeal, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Case (Civil)
No. 56 of 2022, wherein the respondents filed the show-cause stating
therein that the interest on the delayed payment of entire pensionery
2025:JHHC:30860-DB
benefits as well as his House Rent Allowance had been extended to the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case was dropped vide order dated
15.09.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law
available to him for claiming other balance amount towards interest.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner once again approached the Writ Court
by filing W.P. (S) No. 2279 of 2024 claiming interest on the delayed
payment of ACP benefits.
12. The learned Writ Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 held that the
petitioner was entitled to interest on entire benefits that had been
extended to him in light of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 420 of 2020, therefore, the respondents were bound to pay the
interest on the 1st ACP and 2nd ACP which had been extended to the
petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 vide Notification No.1648 dated
29.03.2017 and the actual monetary benefits in fact had been made to
the petitioner only on 14.03.2018.
13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2024, the State has
filed the instant appeal.
14. It is vehemently contended by Sri Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to
learned Sr. S.C.-II appearing for the respondents (appellants herein),
that since the entire amount had been paid along with interest and the
Contempt application preferred by the petitioner has been dropped,
2025:JHHC:30860-DB
therefore, the learned Writ Court could not have awarded interest on the
ACP benefits which was paid after some delay.
15. However, we find no merit in the said contention, as, it is more
than settled that salaries and pensions are rightful entitlements of
government employees and in case of any delay, they should be paid
with interest. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh
and Another v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [2021 11 SCC
OnLine SC 237].
16. In Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College and Others [(2022) 4
SCC 627], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a public servant is
entitled to any monetary benefit / upgradation, the same is to be granted
in favour of such public servant without any delay and if there is any
delay, the consequential benefit in terms of money is required to be
paid along with interest.
17. In view of the settled position of law and the admitted facts,
obviously this appeals sans merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
October 06, 2025
A.F.R.
Manoj/Cp.2
