IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.147 of 2023

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15574 of 2022

======================================================

Most. Usha Barla, Female, Wife of Late Sheikh Mehmood Alam, Retired

Principal, C/o-Mr. John Bodra, near Fire Brigade Colony, East Side, Jail

Road, P.O.- Khunti, District-Khunti.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar Through, Chief Secretary, Main Secretariat, Patna, Bihar-

800015.

2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, New Secretariat,

Baily Road, Patna, Bihar-800015.

3.The Additional Chief Secretary Education Department, New Secretariat,

Vikas Bhawan, Patna-800015.

4.The Director of Secondary Education, Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas

Bhawan, Patna-800015.

5.The Deputy Director of Education Service, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan,

Patna-800015.

6.The Deputy Director of Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Vikas

Bhawan, Patna-800015.

7.The District Education Officer, Jail Road Kaghzi Mohalla, Biharsharif,

Nalanda-803101.

8.The Accountant General, Veerchand Patel Road Area, Patna. Bihar-800001.

9.The District Provident Fund Officer, GPF Office, Nalanda.

10.The Principal, Government High School, Rana Bigha Bihar Sharif, District-

Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s: Ms. Mrs. Anima Loisa Topno, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Apurva Kumar, AC to GA 12

======================================================

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

2/28

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date: 14.10.2026

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

24.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in CWJC

No.15574 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has

been dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches.

2.The brief facts of the case according to the appellant, are

that the husband of the appellant was appointed on a substantive

post against a permanent post of Teacher in Physics in Subordinate

Education Service (Upper Division) and was posted at

Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Kharsawan,

where he joined on 15.03.1961. The husband of the appellant was

transferred six times, hence he had resigned but he withdrew his

resignation, whereafter he was directed to join Rajkiya Sarvodaya

Multipurpose School, Kanke, District-Ranchi vide Notification

dated 09.11.1971 but his joining was not accepted leading to there

being break in service from August, 1968 to 17.07.1978. The

husband of the appellant had then applied for being appointed on

the post of Teacher of Mathematics, which was advertised by the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

3/28

Board of Secondary Education, Bihar and pursuant to his

selection, he had joined as a Teacher of Mathematics in Lower

Division Cadre on 18.07.1978 at the Girls High School, Khunti,

District-Ranchi, which was nationalized along with other private

schools with effect from 02.10.1980 and all the teachers working

in the nationalized school became government employees. In the

meantime, on consideration of the representation of the husband of

the appellant for giving him seniority from the date of his initial

appointment i.e. 15.03.1961 in Subordinate Education Service

(Upper Division), he was given fresh appointment in Bihar

Subordinate Education Service (Lower Division) and it was further

mentioned in the appointment letter that his seniority would count

from the date of joining, however since he was already working in

a nationalized school since 18.07.1978, offer of this fresh

appointment was meaningless, thus he did not join, therefore his

services were terminated by an order dated 29.11.1988.

3.The husband of the appellant had then challenged the order

of termination dated 29.11.1988 before the Ranchi Bench of this

Court by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No.2359 of 1991 (R)

which was allowed vide judgment dated 03.12.1992 and the order

of termination was quashed as also the respondents were directed

to grant consequential benefits to the husband of the appellant.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

4/28

Thereafter, the husband of the appellant had filed a representation

before the Director of Secondary Education, Bihar for

implementation of the aforesaid order dated 03.12.1992, however

no action was taken leading to the husband of the appellant filing a

contempt petition bearing MJC No.298 of 1993 (R) which was

disposed of by an order dated 10.02.1994 with a direction to the

respondents to pass appropriate order within ten days for

implementation of the said judgment dated 03.12.1992.

4.The respondents had then filed a review petition bearing

Civil Review No.14 of 1994 (R), however the same was dismissed

by an order dated 10.01.1995. The husband of the appellant had to

again file a contempt petition bearing MJC No.158 of 1994 (R)

which was disposed of by an order dated 20.12.1995, since the

representation of the husband of the appellant had been disposed

of by a Notification dated 03.07.1995, whereby and whereunder

decision was taken to give seniority to the husband of the appellant

in Subordinate Education Service with effect from 15.03.1961 as

also it was decided to give him all benefits of Subordinate

Education Service treating him to be in service since 15.03.1961.

The said Notification was issued when the husband of the

appellant was working at Bal Krishna High School, however he

was relieved immediately to join at Government High School,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

5/28

Biharsharif where he joined on the post of Principal on 18.07.1995

in his existing pay-scale and just after six months, he retired on

31.01.1996 on completing the age of 58 years.

5.The husband of the appellant had then prepared a statement

of arrears of salary for the period August, 1968 to 31.01.1996

totaling to a sum of Rs.9,62,341.18 and had sent it to the Office of

the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar Patna on 25.04.1996,

whereafter he had filed several representations for payment of

arrears of salary but to no avail. This led to filing of yet another

writ petition bearing CWJC No.2344 of 1997 (R) for payment of

arrears of salary and other reliefs including grant of promotion and

arrears of retiral benefits, for proper fixation of pay and for

refixation of pension on the basis of revised salary etc. The said

writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.01.1997 with a

direction to the respondents to pay the admitted dues including

retiral benefits and consider the case of the husband of the

appellant for regular promotion etc.

6.Since, the order dated 01.01.1997 was not complied with,

the husband of the appellant had filed a contempt petition bearing

MJC No.436 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of by an order dated

12.02.2003, wherein it was recorded that the retiral benefits have

been paid, the authorities have issued orders of time bound

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

6/28

promotion, inasmuch as the husband of the appellant has been

granted first time bound promotion with effect from 01.04.1981

and second time bound promotion with effect from 15.03.1986. In

the said order dated 12.02.2003, it was also recorded that the Court

is not inclined to pass any further order with regard to promotion

of the husband of the appellant, inasmuch as there is nothing on

record to show that a person junior to the husband of the appellant

has been promoted to a higher post giving rise to a claim in his

favour for consideration of his case for promotion and moreover,

the husband of the appellant had a right for consideration of his

case for time bound promotion, which has already been granted

vide Notifications dated 9

th

and 10

th

of February, 2001. Finally, the

Ld. Single Judge by the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2003, in

nutshell issued the following directions:-

“(i) The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the

husband of the appellant in the light of Notification of

promotion dated 9

th

and 10

th

of February, 2001.

(ii) The respondents are accordingly directed to refix the

retiral benefits of the husband of the appellant on the basis

of such fixation of pay, as aforesaid and pay the

consequential benefits of arrears of salary on revision,

pension, gratuity & leave encashment within three months.

(iii) The husband of the appellant was granted liberty to

approach the District Provident Fund Officer concerned in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

7/28

case he has any grievance with regard to provident fund

amount.”

7.After a series of representations to all concerned by the

husband of the appellant to fix his pension @ Rs.4100/- per month,

his pension was fixed @ Rs.984/- per month which was even less

than the provisional pension of Rs.1192/- per month. The husband

of the appellant had filed several representations, whereupon his

pension was revised to Rs.1325/- per month. On further

representation, the Accountant General, Bihar had revised the

pension of the husband of the appellant to Rs.2050/- for the period

from 01.02.1996 to 31.03.1997 and converted his pension in the

revised scale of Rs.5000-9000/-, to be effective from 01.04.1997.

The husband of the appellant had then filed yet another writ

petition bearing WP (S) No. 4208 of 2003, inter alia praying

therein for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To pay 12% interest on the arrear of salary of

the period from August 1968 to January 1996 which has

been paid on 06.05.2003 after 11 years of the order dated

03.12.1992 passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C.

No.-2359/1991 (R) for making such payment and that too

after the petitioner’s husband pursued the matter by

filing a series of writ and contempt petitions.

(ii) To revise the pension, gratuity and other retiral

benefits on the basis of pay, in the replacement scale of

Rs. 7500/12500- for Principal Zila School as has been

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

8/28

done by the Accountant General in case of other retired

Principals and to pay the arrear to the petitioner’s

husband with interest.

(iii) To pay reasonable penal interest on the entire

claim of arrear of salary and other retiral benefits as the

Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts have

been pleased to allow from time to time in suitable cases

of undue delay or on wrong/lower fixation of pensionary

benefits.

(iv) To pay exemplary cost to compensate the

heavy expenses, hardships, harassment and mental agony

suffered by the petitioner’s husband, and lastly he died

during the pendency of the litigation before this Hon’ble

Court in pursuing the matter for more than long 26 years

after his retirement in getting his rightful claims.”

8.The aforesaid writ petition was admitted vide order dated

02.07.2009 and subsequently the husband of the appellant had

prayed before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi that he

was not pressing relief Nos. (ii) and (iv), as aforesaid which was

allowed by the Court by an order dated 02.09.2009. The aforesaid

writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 4208 of 2003 was finally disposed

of by an order dated 22.12.2011, while recording that all the

consequential benefits/arrears of salary/retiral dues have been paid,

however the respondents were directed to make payment of

interest at the rate of simple interest of 5 % per month from the

date on which the amount became due till the actual payment is

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

9/28

made, within a period of 12 weeks of receipt of a copy of the said

order dated 22.12.2011. It appears that the aforesaid order dated

22.12.2011 was not complied with, hence the same led to the

husband of the appellant filing a contempt petition bearing Cont.

Case (Civil) No.663 of 2012 which was dismissed vide order dated

25.04.2014 in view of a sum of Rs.6,81,356/- having been paid to

the husband of the appellant by means of a demand draft on the

head of interest. It may be relevant to mention here that the

husband of the appellant had earlier filed one Cont. (Civil) Case

No. 87 of 2004, which was disposed of by an order dt. 25.07.2006

and it was recorded therein that since the balance amount of the

GPF, i.e Rs.57,619/- was paid on 13.03.2002 & the chart enclosed

with the show cause shows that the statutory interest has been

calculated up to the month of January, 2000, hence the District

Provident Fund Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif shall calculate the

statutory interest of the remaining amount, if any, within 2 months.

9.The husband of the appellant had then filed yet another writ

petition before this Court bearing CWJC No.13119 of 2016, inter

alia praying therein for the following reliefs:-

“1. That through this writ petition, the petitioner prays for

issuance of an appropriate writ(s), rule(s), order(s),

direction(s) commanding the respondents to give following

relief to the petitioner who was promoted to Education

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

10/28

Service Cadre II subject to his regular promotion by Bihar

Public Service Commission in his own pay scale and

transferred from Bal Krishna High School, Ranchi to

Government High School, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda on the post

of Principal (Annexure-4) on which post petitioner joined on

18.07.1995 and superannuated at the age of 58 years on

31.01.1996:-

A. To issue fresh Pay Slip in prescribed Performa to

petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 fixing his pay in revised scales

in the pay scales prescribed to employees of Bihar

Education Service Class-II as on 01.01.1996 by revising

his previous pay successively on 01.04.1978 (by giving 5

increments pursuant to departmental memo no 217/78

dated 4/5 June 1982, 01.04.1981, 01.01.1986 &

01.01.1996 as per recommendation of Successive Pay

revision Committee Reports and taking into consideration

the merger of Subordinate Education Service into Bihar

Education Service class- II w.e.f 01.01.1977 and grant of

First Time Bond Promotion w.e.f 01.01.1987 in Pay Scale

of Rs 3000- 4500 admissible to employees of Bihar

Education Service Class-II. Pursuant to Notification Memo

no 435 dated 10.02.2014 issued by Deputy Secretary- cum-

Deputy Director (Administration), Education Department,

Government of Bihar contained in Annexure-10.

B. To pay to petitioner difference of salary from 01.01.1977

to 21.01.1996 pursuant to aforesaid revision in his pay

scale due to such merger in Bihar Education Service Class-

II w.e.f 01.01.1977 and grant of First Time Bond

Promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1987.

C. To revise the pension gratuity and leave encashment of

petitioner pursuant to aforesaid revision in his pay scale

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

11/28

due to aforesaid merger into Bihar Education Service

Class-II w.e.f 01.01.1977 and grant of First Time Bond

Promotion w.e.f 01.01.1987 and pay the revised pension

and difference of pension gratuity and leave encashment to

petitioner.

D. To pay up-to-date interest on "interest amount of Rs

6,81,350" paid at belated stage on 25.04.2014 which

'interest amount of Rs 6,81,350' petitioner was legally

entitled to be paid along with arrear of salary paid on

06.05.2003 without interest.

E. To calculate statutory interest from February 2000 and

pay up-to-date remaining statutory interest on balance

GPF i.e Rs 57,619/- pursuant to order dated 25.07.2006

passed in Cont. (Civil) Case no 87 of 2004 by this Hon'ble

Court vide Annexure-9.

F. To pay reasonable penal interest on the entire claim of

arrear retiral benefit as the Hon'ble High Courts and Apex

Court have been pleased to allow in suitable cases of

undue delay.

G. To pay exemplary cost of compensate the heavy

expenses, hardships, harassment and mental agony

suffered by the petitioner in pursuing the matter from 1991

onwards for redressal of his rightful claims before this

Hon'ble Court.”

10.It is a matter of record that in the said writ petition bearing

CWJC No.13119 of 2016 an interlocutory application bearing I.A.

No. 10022 of 2016 was filed for substituting the legal heirs of the

deceased petitioner of the said writ petition who had died on

26.11.2016. Nonetheless, the learned Single Judge of this Court by

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

12/28

an order dated 09.03.2017, passed in the said writ petition i.e.

CWJC No.13119 of 2016, had disposed of the said writ petition,

upon the learned counsel for the writ petitioner having sought

leave of the Court to withdraw the said writ application as also I.A.

No.10022 of 2016. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a contempt

petition bearing MJC No. 1618 of 2017, however the same had

stood dismissed for default on account of non-compliance of the

peremptory order dated 11.09.2019. The appellant had then filed a

restoration petition bearing MJC No. 188 of 2020 for restoration of

the aforesaid contempt petition bearing MJC No.1618 of 2017,

however the Ld. Single Judge of this Court by a judgment dated

06.07.2022 had dismissed the said petition on the ground that

though the contempt petition bearing MJC No. 1618 of 2017 has

been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings

against the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order dated

09.03.2017 passed in CWJC No.13119 of 2016, by which the writ

petition was allowed to be withdrawn, but no relief can be granted

to the petitioner in the contempt petition even if the same is

restored since there is nothing in the order dated 09.03.2017

passed in C.W.J.C. No.13119 of 2016 which would give rise to any

contempt application.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

13/28

11.The wife of the deceased employee had then filed the

connected writ petition bearing CWJC No.15574 of 2022 to issue

fresh pay-slip in the prescribed pro forma to the husband of the

appellant with effect from 01.01.1996, fixing his pay in the revised

scale prescribed to the employees of Bihar Education Service

Class II as per recommendation of Successive Pay Revision

Committee reports and considering the merger of Subordinate

Education Service into Bihar Education Service Class II with

effect from 01.01.1997 and accordingly grant first time bound

promotion with effect from 01.01.1987, to pay the dues of salary

from 01.1.1977 to 31.01.1996, pursuant to the aforesaid revision in

pay scale, to revise the pension, gratuity and leave encashment and

pay the differential amount, to pay up-to-date interest on interest

amount of Rs 6,81,350/- paid belatedly, to calculate and pay

statutory interest from February, 2000 on balance amount of GPF,

i.e. Rs.57,619/-, to fix the pay and pension in the pay scale of Rs.

7500-12000, to pay reasonable penal interest on the entire claim of

arrear retiral benefit & pay exemplary cost to compensate heavy

expenses, hardships, harassment and mental agony suffered by the

petitioner in pursuing the matter from 1991 onwards for redressal

of his rightful claims. At this juncture, it would be relevant to

reproduce herein below the prayer made by the appellant in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

14/28

connected writ petition filed before this Court bearing CWJC

No.15574 of 2022, which is reproduced herein below:-

“1. That through the writ petition the petitioner prays for

issuance of an appropriate writ(s), rule(s), order(s),

direction(s) commanding the respondents to give following

relief to the petitioner whose husband was promoted to

Education service cadre II subject to his regular promotion

by Bihar Public Service Commission on his own pay scale

and transferred from Bal Krishna High School Ranchi to

Government High School, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda on the post

of Principal on which post he joined on 18.07.1995 and

superannuated at the age of 58 years on 31.01.1996.

(A) To issue fresh pay slip in prescribed Performa to the

petitioners husband w.e.f. 01.01.1996 fixing his pay in

revised scales in the pay scales prescribed to employees of

Bihar Education Service class II as on 01.01.1996 by

revising his previous pay successively on 01.04.1975 by

revising his previous pay successively on 01.04.1978 (by

giving 5 increments pursuant to departmental memo no

217/78 dated 4/5 June 1982, 10.04.1981, 01.01.1986 and

01.01.1996 as per recommendation of Successive Pay

Revision Committee Reports and taking into consideration

the merger of Subordinate Education Service into Bihar

Education Service Class II w.e.f. 01.01.1977 and grant of

first time bond promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1987 in pay scale of

Rs. 3000-4500 admissible to employees of Bihar Education

Service Class II. Pursuant to notification memo no 435 dated

10.02.2014 issued by Deputy Secretary cum Deputy Director

(Administration), Education Department, Government of

Bihar Contained in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

15/28

(B) To pay to the petitioners husband difference of salary

from 01.01.1977 to 31.01.1996 pursuant to aforesaid

revision in his pay scale due to such merge in Bihar

Education Service class II w.e.f. 01.01.1977 and grant of

First Time Bond promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1987.

(c) To revise the pension, gratuity and leave encashment of

petitioner’s husband pursuant to aforesaid revision in his

pay scale due to aforesaid merger into Bihar Education

Service class II w.e.f. 01.01.1977 and grant of First Time

Bond Promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1987 and pay the revised

pension and difference of pension, gratuity and leave

encashment to him.

(D) To pay up to date interest on “interest amount of Rs.

6,81,350” paid at belated stage on 25.04.2014 which

‘interest amount of Rs. 6,81,350’ petitioner’s husband was

legally entitled to be paid along with arrear of salary paid

on 06.05.2003 without interest.

(E) To calculate statutory interest from February 2000 and

pay up-to-date remaining statutory interest on valance GPF

i.e. Rs. 57,619/- pursuant to order dated 25.07.2006 passed

in cont.(Civil) Case No.-87 of 2004 by the Hon’ble Mr.

Justice R.K. Merathia of the Hon’ble High Court of

Jharkhand at Ranchi.

(F) To fix the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 and

also fixt the pension on the basis of enhanced scale.

(G) To pay reasonable penal interest on the entire claim of

arrear, retiral benefit as the Hon’ble High Courts and Apex

Court have been pleased to allow in suitable cases of undue

delay and lower pension.

(H) To pay exemplary cost to compensate the heavy

expenses, hardship, harassment and mental agony suffered

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

16/28

by the petitioners husband in pursuing the matter from 1991

onwards for redressal of his rightful claims before this

Hon’ble Court.

Any other relief or reliefs for which the

petitioner may be found to be entitled or which your

Lordships may deem fit and proper in this case.”

12.The aforesaid writ petition bearing CWJC No.15574 of

2022 has been dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court on

the ground of gross delay and laches, hence the present appeal has

been filed by the appellant.

13.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

after the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No.8226-8227 of 2012 on 23.11.2012, the respondents

vide Resolution No.687 dated 02.04.2013 have cancelled the

Notification dated 19.11.2007 and restored the Notification

No.1209 dated 07.07.2006, whereby and whereunder the Teachers

of the Subordinate Education Service (Teaching Branch), Male and

Female Cadre were merged into the Bihar Education Service Class

II with effect from 01.01.1977 as per the Finance Department

Notification dated 11.04.1977. Thus, on account of the aforesaid

merger with effect from 01.01.1977, the respondents had issued

Notification dated 10.02.2014 wherein it has been stated that the

merger has taken place with effect from 01.01.1977, hence the

merged officers named in the said Notification are being given

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

17/28

first time bound promotion provisionally from the date mentioned

against their name in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/-. As far as the

husband of the appellant is concerned, it is submitted that he was

granted first time bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1987,

however he is not only entitled to the monetary benefits upon grant

of first-time bound promotion with effect from 1.1.1987 but his

pay is required to be revised with effect from 1.1.1996. At this

juncture itself we may state that even as per the arguments

advanced by the Ld. counsel for the appellant, the husband of the

appellant has been granted first time bound promotion with effect

from 01.01.1987, vide Notification dated 10.02.2014, issued by the

Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. All these

issues being now belatedly raised by the appellant have already

stood concluded and the connected writ petition has been filed by

way of camouflage, inasmuch as the actual purpose is to somehow

extract illicit and unjustified sums from the respondents by way of

claiming preposterous amount in the form of interest on interest

amount and exemplary cost to compensate heavy expenses,

hardships, harassment and mental agony suffered by the appellant.

14.The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted

that the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide order

dated 12.02.2003 had granted liberty to the husband of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

18/28

appellant to approach the concerned District Provident Fund

Officer in case he has got any grievance with regard to the

provident fund, who in-turn would hand-over to the husband of the

appellant a chart showing details of payment to which he is

entitled and the payment already made. In fact the husband of the

appellant being aggrieved, had filed a contempt petition bearing

Cont. (Civil) Case No. 87 of 2004 which was disposed of by an

order dated 25.07.2006 with an observation that from the chart

enclosed with the show cause, it is apparent that the balance

amount of GPF i.e. Rs.57,619/- was paid on 13.03.2002, however

statutory interest has been calculated only up to the month of

January, 2000, thus the District Provident Fund Officer, Nalanda,

Biharsharif, Bihar was directed to calculate the remaining statutory

interest, if any and pay the same.

15.At this juncture, we may note that since the Hon’ble High

Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by the an order dated 12.02.2003

passed in MJC No. 436 of 1999 (R) had observed that the

grievance of the husband of the appellant with regard to provident

fund would be resolved by the District Provident Fund Officer

concerned, which had also led to filing of a contempt case bearing

Cont. (Civil) Case No. 87 of 2004 and passing of an order dated

25.07.2006, the husband of the appellant/appellant was/is required

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

19/28

to agitate the grievances emanating from the said orders dated

12.02.2003 and 25.07.2006 before the Hon’ble High Court of

Jharkhand at Ranchi by taking recourse to appropriate remedy, in

case the said Orders have not stood complied with fully.

16.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide order dated

22.12.2011 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.4208 of 2003 had

directed for making payment of interest at the rate of simple

interest of 5% per annum from the date on which the arrear

amount became due till the actual payment is made, however the

same has not been complied with. In this regard we find that the

husband of the appellant had filed a contempt petition bearing

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 663 of 2012 which has been dismissed by

an order dated 25.04.2014 for the reason mentioned therein to the

effect that the State of Bihar has paid the legally payable amount

on 06.05.2003, hence simple interest @ 5 % per anuum has been

calculated from the date from which the amount became due till

the date of actual payment, i.e. 06.05.2003 and a demand draft for

a sum of Rs.6,81,356/- has been paid to the deceased-husband of

the appellant, thus there is due compliance of the order dated

22.12.2011, passed in WP (S) No. 4208 of 2003. Now the learned

counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the simple

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

20/28

interest @ 5 % was paid after some delay in the Court on

25.04.2014, interest is required to be paid on the delayed payment

of the interest amount. At this juncture itself, we may record our

displeasure over the type of prayer being made and the kind of

argument being advanced on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as

the learned counsel for the appellant has neither pleaded nor made

us aware of any statutory provision much less any law which

mandates grant of interest over interest although the learned

counsel for the appellant has referred to a judgment dated

01.05.1991 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC

No. 1575 of 1990 (R) (Hari Pada Tiwari vs. the State of Bihar &

Others) to contend that since the retiral dues were not paid despite

lapse of four years of retirement, the Court had directed to make

payment of all the dues of the employee along with penal interest

@ 25 % per annum, however we find that in the present case this

prayer of the appellant has already being considered in the writ

petition filed by the husband of the appellant bearing WP (S) No.

4208 of 2003, wherein vide order dated 22.12.2011, the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had directed to make payment

of interest at the rate of simple interest of 5% per annum from the

date on which the arrear amounts became due till the date of actual

payment, hence the said judgment is of no help to the appellant.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

21/28

17.Another judgment referred to by the appellant is the one

dated 26.06.1990 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in

CWJC No. 3950 of 1999 (Syed Sarwar Ali vs. Union of India

and Others), whereby the respondents were directed to refix the

pension of the petitioner, as indicated therein within three months

of receipt of the order and pay the arrears within one month

therefrom, however it was further directed that in case any delay

occurs in making payment beyond the time fixed in the said order,

the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 75 % per annum till

the actual payment is made but we find from the order dated

22.12.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at

Ranchi in WP (S) No. 4208 of 2003 that simple interest at the rate

of 5% per annum from the date on which the arrear amount

became due till the date of actual payment has already been

directed to be paid, hence the said judgment is also of no avail to

the appellant. Thus, we find that this chapter has already stood

closed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi,

hence the same does not require any further consideration,

specially for the foregoing reasons.

18.Yet another aspect of the matter which we might dwell upon

is that the present writ petition is barred by the principles of res

judicata and constructive res judicata. The principle of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

22/28

constructive res judicata is an extension of principle of res

judicata. In this regard we may gainfully reproduce hereinbelow

Section 11 & Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:-

“Section 11. Res judicata- No Court shall try any suit or

issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue

has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit

between the same parties, or between parties under whom

they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a

Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in

which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been

heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I. - The expression "former suit" shall denote a

suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question

whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section, the

competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of

any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of

such Court.

Explanation III. - The matter above referred to must in the

former suit have been alleged by one party and either

denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV. - Any matter which might and ought to have

been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit

shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and

substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V. - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is

not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes

of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

23/28

Explanation VI. - Where persons litigate bona fide in

respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in

common for themselves and others, all persons interested in

such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed

to claim under the persons so litigating.

[Explanation VII. - The provisions of this section shall apply

to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in

this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed

as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution

of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a

former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII. - An issue heard and finally decided by a

Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue,

shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit,

notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was

not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which

such issue has been subsequently raised.]”

“Order 2, Frame of Suit, Rule 2. Suit to include the whole

claim. - (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim

which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause

of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his

claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any

Court.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim. - Where a plaintiff omits

to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion

of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the

portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs. - A person

entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of

action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

24/28

except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs,

he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this rule an obligation and

a collateral security for its performance and successive

claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed

respectively to constitute but one cause of action.”

Thus, as far as the proceedings of a suit where the Code of

Civil Procedure 1908 is applicable, it is amply clear that if any

matter which might and ought to have been made ground of

defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been

a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit, thus any

subsequent suit will not be maintainable on account of being

barred by the principle of res judicata & constructive res judicata.

19.It is well settled law that the principle of res judicata and

constructive res judicata as provided for in the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 are also applicable to writ petitions. Reference in

this connection be had to the Constitution Bench judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Direct Recruit Class

II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra &

Others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 and the judgment rendered

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devilal Modi vs. Sales

Tax Officer, Ratlam & Others reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC

17 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & Others

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

25/28

reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408. In this regard we would also

gainfully refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Bharat Amritlal Kothari & Another vs. Dosukhan

Samadkhan Sindhi & Others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 234,

Paragraph Nos.29 to 32, whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“29. The approach of the High Court in granting relief not

prayed for cannot be approved by this Court. Every petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution must contain a relief

clause. Whenever the petitioner is entitled to or is claiming

more than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs. Under

the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the

plaintiff omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for

any particular relief which he is entitled to get, he will not

afterwards be allowed to sue in respect of the portion so

omitted or relinquished.

30. Though the provisions of the Code are not made

applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the general principles made in the Civil

Procedure Code will apply even to writ petitions. It is,

therefore, incumbent on the petitioner to claim all reliefs he

seeks from the court. Normally, the court will grant only those

reliefs specifically prayed for by the petitioner. Though the

court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court,

however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and

principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even

prayed for by the petitioner.

31. In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow

[(1984) 1 SCC 307], overlooking the rule relating to grant of

admission to postgraduate course in Medical College, the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

26/28

High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution directed the Medical Council to grant

provisional admission to the petitioner. This Court set aside

the order passed by the High Court observing that:

“26. … in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent

had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college

to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a

step further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus

directing the college to admit him to the MS course and thus

granted a relief to the respondent which he himself never

prayed for and could not have prayed for.”

32. Again, in Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar [(1991) 1 SCC

441], this Court observed: (SCC p. 445, para 4)

“4. … A party cannot be granted a relief which is not

claimed, if the circumstances of the case are such that the

granting of such relief would result in serious prejudice to the

interested party & deprive him of the valuable rights under

the statute.”

20.Thus, considering the reliefs sought for by the husband of

the appellant/the appellant in the writ petitions filed earlier, either

before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi or this

Court, a subsequent writ involving the same issues which were

directly and substantially in issue in the said writ petition would

definitely be barred by the principles of res judicata and moreover,

if any issue which ought to have been raised or made a ground for

defence or attack in a previous writ petition but was not raised

shall be deemed to have been an issue that directly and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

27/28

substantially in issue in such a writ petition, hence any subsequent

writ petition will not be maintainable being barred by the

principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. In such

view of the matter, we find that the prayers made in the present

writ petition could have very well been raised in the earlier writ

petition, however the deceased husband of the appellant/the

appellant has omitted to make such prayers in the earlier round of

litigations, thereby has voluntarily relinquished this part of his/her

claim hence, the appellant is now debarred from filing the present

writ petition with respect to such relief/claim which he/she had

voluntarily relinquished and omitted to claim in the earlier round

of litigation which would definitely be barred by the principles of

constructive res judicata, inasmuch as if the claim being now

raised by the petitioner is permitted, there will be no end to

litigation.

21.We further find from a bare perusal of the reliefs sought for

by the deceased employee in the aforesaid writ petition bearing

CWJC No.13119 of 2016 as also the connected writ petition

bearing CWJC No.15574 of 2022 that the prayer made therein are

absolutely identical ad verbatim, hence the appellant is precluded

from again filing the connected writ petition i.e. CWJC 15574 of

2022 for the same reliefs as were prayed for in the earlier writ

Patna High Court L.P.A No.147 of 2023 dt.14-10-2026

28/28

petition, since the earlier writ petition, i.e. CWJC No. 13119 of

2016 had stood disposed of as withdrawn by an order dated

09.03.2017, however without any liberty to the appellant to file a

fresh writ petition, thus the connected writ petition i.e. CWJC

15574 of 2022 is definitely barred by the principle of constructive

res judicata and therefore, the writ petition being not maintainable

is liable to be dismissed, resultantly the present appeal is also sans

any merit.

22.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge

in CWJC No. 15574 of 2022, hence the present appeal stands

dismissed.

GAURAV S./-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 29.07.2026

Uploading Date 14.10.2026

Transmission Date