Case Background
The case arose from a long-pending salary dispute relating to a dresser-cum-compounder working at Government Polytechnic College, Gaya.
The employee, father of the writ petitioner, was appointed as a Dresser-cum-Compounder in the Government Polytechnic College, Gaya. He died in service on 24.04.2003. According to the petitioner, salary from July 1992 to 22.04.2003 remained unpaid.
Many years later, on 17.05.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to the State authorities seeking payment of his late father’s outstanding salary dues. No action was taken on this representation.
In the meantime, the petitioner’s mother had also passed away on 05.08.2016. The petitioner continued to claim the salary dues for the period during which his father had worked without receiving full pay.
With no effective response from the authorities, the petitioner finally approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12983 of 2022 on 03.09.2022. He sought a direction (mandamus) to pay the unpaid salary from July 1992 to 22.04.2003 and any other appropriate relief.
During the writ proceedings, the State (respondents 1 to 3) filed a counter affidavit. They stated that the petitioner had come to the Court after an inordinate delay of about 20 years. Because the claim was very old, they said the records relating to the petitioner’s father had to be verified from Government Polytechnic College, Gaya and they needed time for this verification.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit. In this rejoinder, he informed the Court that the State authorities had finally paid the arrears of salary from 01.01.1992 to 22.04.2003. The total amount paid was Rs. 6,71,715/-, and payment was made on 23.03.2024, almost 21 years after his father’s death.
On this basis, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to interest on the delayed salary payment and also sought litigation costs.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 14.08.2024. The Judge noted that the arrears had been paid, and that there was no reply from the State explaining the inordinate delay. The Single Judge directed the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum from the dates on which the salary had originally fallen due, up to the date of payment on 23.03.2024.
The State of Bihar, represented through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, the Director of the Department, and the Principal of the Government Polytechnic College, challenged this direction in a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No.180 of 2025) before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar heard the appeal. The oral judgment was delivered on 15.04.2026.
The main question before the Bench was not whether the arrears were payable. Those arrears had already been paid to the petitioner on 23.03.2024. The dispute now centred on the period for which interest could be granted on such delayed payment, especially when the writ petition itself had been filed after a long gap.
On behalf of the appellants (the State authorities), learned counsel argued that the Single Judge’s order granting interest for the entire period of delay was unjustified. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648.
In Tarsem Singh, the Supreme Court had examined how courts should deal with delayed service-related claims. The relevant portion quoted by the Patna High Court summarises the law on delay and laches in such matters.
The Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh explained that normally, a belated service-related claim will be rejected because of delay and laches (in writ jurisdiction) or limitation (before tribunals). An exception to this is where the claim is based on a continuing wrong, creating a continuing source of injury.
However, even in such cases, if reopening the issue would disturb the settled rights of third parties, the claim will not be entertained. The Supreme Court gave an example: where the dispute relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted despite delay, because it does not affect third-party rights. But where issues of seniority or promotion are involved and others would be affected, delay would make the claim stale.
Importantly for this case, the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh held that, for consequential relief of arrears relating to a past period, the principles of recurring wrongs will apply. As a result, High Courts should normally restrict arrears to three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.
The Division Bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 144. That decision again applied and reinforced the Tarsem Singh principles.
In Rushibhai, the Supreme Court noted that in Tarsem Singh the Court had set aside an order granting 16 years of arrears with interest, even though the employee ultimately succeeded on the merits. The arrear relief was limited to three years before the writ or demand, whichever was smaller, and interest on arrears was also denied.
Rushibhai further recorded that this approach had been followed in other cases such as 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. The Supreme Court made it clear that courts should not extend financial benefits from the date of a judgment where the law in Tarsem Singh applied; instead, the three-year limit from the date of filing or demand must be respected.
Armed with these rulings, the State submitted before the Patna High Court that the Single Judge was wrong in awarding interest for the entire span from when the salary first became due in 1992 till payment in 2024, because the writ petition was filed only in September 2022, long after the service period and long after the employee’s death.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner supported the order of the Single Judge. He relied on the fact that the State had taken no steps to pay the salary dues for over two decades and had not even explained the delay in response to the rejoinder affidavit filed before the Single Judge.
The Division Bench carefully considered the rival submissions. The Bench accepted that the writ petition was filed only on 03.09.2022, almost 19 years after the death of the employee in April 2003 and decades after the first default in salary payment.
While the Court did not disturb the fact that the arrears had rightly been paid in full, it focused on the limited legal question of how far back interest could run in law.
Applying the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak, the Bench held that the Single Judge’s direction granting interest for the entire period of delay could not stand.
The Division Bench reasoned that, once the writ petition itself was a belated service-related claim, any monetary consequential relief had to be confined to a reasonable period prior to the filing of the writ petition. The consistent view of the Supreme Court is that this period is normally three years.
Therefore, the Court decided to modify the Single Judge’s order. Instead of interest from 1992 or 2003 onward, interest would be restricted to three years immediately before the filing of the writ petition, i.e., from 03.09.2019 to 03.09.2022.
At the same time, the Bench maintained the rate of interest at 6% per annum as ordered by the Single Judge. This rate would apply only to the limited period that the Bench considered legally permissible.
To make the position clear, the Court directed that the appellants must pay 6% per annum interest on the salary dues of Rs. 6,71,715/-, which had already been paid to the petitioner, but only for the period from 03.09.2019 to 03.09.2022. No interest is payable for the earlier years.
With this modification, the Letters Patent Appeal was partly allowed. The rest of the Single Judge’s order, particularly regarding the fact of payment of arrears, was left undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees, their families, and lawyers dealing with old service-related monetary claims.
First, the Patna High Court has confirmed that the government cannot escape paying genuine salary dues, even after many years. In this case, arrears running back to 1992 were ultimately paid.
Second, the decision sends a clear message that, where an employee or their family comes to court after a long delay, full back interest for all the years of default will not usually be granted. Courts will likely restrict such financial relief to a recent three-year window.
For families who discover unpaid dues long after the employee’s death, this ruling shows that they may still get the principal amount, but they should not expect interest for the entire period if they wait too long to file a case.
For departments, the decision is a reminder to maintain proper records and clear genuine dues promptly, because they can still be directed to pay interest for a limited period even when the claim is old.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: When a writ petitioner challenges delayed payment of salary arrears after a very long gap, can the court grant interest for the whole period of delay?
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Patna High Court held that interest on such arrears should normally be limited to three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.
Issue: Was the learned Single Judge justified in directing interest at 6% per annum from the dates the salary originally became due till the date of actual payment in 2024?
Answer: Only partly. The Division Bench upheld the 6% rate but modified the order to restrict interest to the period from 03.09.2019 to 03.09.2022.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648.
- Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 144.
- State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 538 (referred to through Rushibhai judgment).
- Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (referred to through Rushibhai judgment).
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No.180 of 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12983 of 2022
Case Title: The State of Bihar and Others v. Uday Kumar
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2026
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 457
Advocates: For the appellants (State of Bihar and others): Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, A.C. to S.C.-7; For the respondent (writ petitioner): Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order in a writ petition concerning delayed payment of salary arrears and interest.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
