Patna High Court

Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary,versusUday Kumar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: THE CHIEF JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

Holding

Interest on the salary arrears is payable only for the three years preceding the filing of the writ petition, i.e., from 3 September 2019 to 3 September 2022.

Summary

The petitioner, Uday Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking payment of his late father's salary arrears from July 1992 to April 2003, which were finally paid in March 2024. The Single Judge ordered the State to pay interest at 6% from the date the salary became due until payment. The State appealed, arguing that the claim was filed after an inordinate delay and that interest should not be awarded for the entire period, relying on Supreme Court precedents limiting relief for belated service claims. The High Court examined the doctrine of laches and the Tarsem Singh and Rushibhai Pathak judgments, which restrict interest on arrears to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the Court modified the interest award to cover only the period from 3 September 2019 to 3 September 2022. The Letters Patent Appeal was therefore partly allowed, with the interest direction curtailed.

Issues considered

Whether interest on salary arrears can be awarded for the entire period of delay (1992-2003) despite the petition being filed after a long lapse.
Whether the doctrine of laches or limitation bars the claim for interest on service‑related arrears.
What period of interest, if any, is permissible under the precedents of Tarsem Singh and Rushibhai Pathak.

Subjects

salary arrears
interest on delayed payment
laches
limitation period
service liability
letters patent appeal
public servant

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.180 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12983 of 2022
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Science,
Technology and Technical Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Director, Science, Technology and Technical Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal, Government of Ploytechnic College, Gaya.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Uday Kumar Son of Late Ramdeo Prasad, Resident of Village/ Mohalla
Ghughritand, P.S. Chand Chouraha, District- Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, A.C. to S.C.-7
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 15-04-2026

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by

the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed

by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12983 of 2022,

whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has been

pleased to direct the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the delayed payment of salary of the petitioner’s

father, for the period from 01.07.1992 to 22.04.2003, till the

date of actual payment, which was made on 23.03.2024.

2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Uday
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
2/7

Kumar, seeking the following reliefs:-

" (i) To issue writ mandamus in nature
directing the Respondent authorities to pay dues
salary from July, 1992 to 22.04.2003 of the
petitioner's father, petitioner father is a dresser
cum compounder, Government Polytechnic
College, Gaya, petitioner's father died on
24.04.2003.
(ii) To any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled for in the facts and
circumstances of the case."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was

appointed as a Dresser-cum-Compounder in Government

Polytechnic College, Gaya, and he died on 24.04.2003 while in

service. It is further stated that there were outstanding dues

towards the salary of his father for the period from July, 1992 to

22.04.2003.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he

submitted a representation dated 17.05.2022 before the

respondent authorities for payment of the said outstanding

salary dues; however, no action was taken thereon. In the

meantime, the petitioner’s mother also expired on 05.08.2016,

and thereafter he continued to claim the salary dues payable to

his father for the aforesaid period.

5. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed a counter
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
3/7

affidavit, wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the petitioner

approached this Hon’ble Court after an inordinate delay of

about 20 years and since the claim of the petitioner is quite old,

the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner’s father were

required to be verified from Government Polytechnic College,

Gaya, and accordingly, some time was sought for such

verification.

6. Rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the

petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

nos. 1 and 3, wherein it is stated that the respondents have paid

the arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.1992 to

22.04.2003, amounting to Rs. 6,71,715/- (Six Lakhs Seventy-

One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen only) on 23.03.2024, i.e.,

after a lapse of about 21 years. It is, therefore, stated that the

petitioner is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment as

well as the litigation costs.

7. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order,

has been pleased to observe as follows:-

"6. In the light of the fact that the
arrears of salary of the petitioner’s father from
01.07.1992 to 22.04.2003 amounting to Rs.
6,71,715/- has been paid in the name of the
petitioner on 23.03.2024, as indicated in the
rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner and in view of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
4/7

the fact that no reply to the rejoinder affidavit has
been filed by the State, explaining the reason for
inordinate delay in payment of the arrears of
salary of the petitioner’s father, this writ petition is
hereby disposed of with a direction to the
respondents that if the arrear salary of the
petitioner’s father has been paid as indicated
hereinabove, the respondents shall pay an interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the
salary of the petitioner’s father was due till the
date of the payment made by the respondents."

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others -Vrs.-

Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648,

contends that the order of the learned Single Judge directing

grant of interest for the entire period is not justified, inasmuch

as the claim of the petitioner was raised belatedly, that too in the

year 2022, by filing the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

In the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), it has been

observed as follows:-

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated
service related claim will be rejected on the ground
of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by
filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy
is sought by an application to the Administrative
Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
5/7

cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a
service related claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long
delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date
on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such
continuing wrong creates a continuing source of
injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If
the grievance is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which related to or affected
several others also, and if the reopening of the
issue would affect the settled rights of third parties,
then the claim will not be entertained. For
example, if the issue relates to payment or
refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted
in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of
third parties. But if the claim involved issues
relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting
others, delay would render the claim stale and
doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied.
Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of
arrears for a past period is concerned, the
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs
will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will
restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears
normally to a period of three years prior to the
date of filing of the writ petition."

In the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak

-Vrs.- Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022)

18 Supreme Court Cases 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held as follows:

“14. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the
delay of 16 years in approaching the courts
affected the consequential claim for arrears
and thus, this Court set aside the direction
to pay arrears for 16 years with interest.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
6/7

The Court restricted “the relief relating to
arrears to only three years before the date
of writ petition, or from the date of demand
to date of writ petition, whichever was
lesser”. Further, the grant of interest on
arrears was also denied.
15. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem
Singh (supra) has been followed by this
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava (reported in
(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 538 and
Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India.
16. ... As noted above, the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench accepts the
said position and grants the appellants the
said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from
the date of the judgment of the Single Judge
in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants,
that is, with effect from 31st July 2018. The
Division Bench should not have taken the
date of the decision/judgment of the Single
Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of
the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh
(supra) which has been followed in several
other decisions. ...”
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, however,

supported the impugned order.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the

respective parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the

aforesaid judgments, and considering that the writ petition was

filed by the petitioner only on 03.09.2022, we deem it

appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.180 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
7/7

restrict the payment of interest to a period of thee years prior to

the date of filing of writ petition.

11. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to pay

interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the salary dues of the

petitioner’s father, amounting to Rs. 6,71,715/- (Six Lakhs

Seventy-One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen only), which has

already been paid to the petitioner, only for the period from

03.09.2019 to 03.09.2022.

12. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, partly

allowed with the aforesaid modification.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

(Harish Kumar, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.04.2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…