Patna High Court - Orders
Avinash Chandra Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 November, 2013
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 621 of 2013
======================================================
1. Avinash Chandra Singh S/O Late Deena Nath Singh R/O Village-
Ekwari, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through It'S Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Near Golghar, Patna
3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna Visheshwaria
Bhawan, Secretariat, Now Designated As The Chief Engineer-2, Rural
Works Department, Bhagalpur, Head Quarter-Patna, Barrack No. 2,
Harding Road, Patna
4. The Superintending Engineer Rural Works Department, Work Circle No.
2, Patna Now Designated As Rural Works Department-Cum-Ruralworks
Circle, Sasaram
5. The Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Work Division,
Dumraon, District- Buxar
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
2 29-11-2013We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the State.
The present Appeal arises from order dated 2.4.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 5243 of 2013, imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- also.
We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that in absence of any specific direction in L.P.A. No. 626 of 2009 for payment of interest on the arrears, mere use of the words "consequential benefits" cannot 2 Patna High Court LPA No.621 of 2013 (2) dt.29-11-2013 2/2 take the same within its ambit.
The learned Single Judge keeping in mind that the Appellant was a retired employee imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. The submission on behalf of the Appellant is that he was an Accounts Clerk and the amount of costs affects him adversely as it will have to be paid from his post retiral dues.
Under normal circumstances, we would not have interfered with the costs at all. But considering the fact that it has penal consequence on the Appellant and costs are not to be imposed as a measure of punishment only, in the entirety of the matter, we are satisfied to reduce it to Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand).
On merits, we find no reason to interfere with the order under Appeal.
The Appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated above.
(Navin Sinha, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar