Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly petitioner's services as Assistant Teacher in Project Girls High School, Bano, Simdega were recognized on the report of three man committee vide notification dated 9.2.2011 as referred to in para -21 of the writ petition. The instant notification contains instructions for payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1989. Petitioner had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3530 of 2012 for release of arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1989. That writ petition stood disposed of vide judgment at Annexure -4 dated 16.8.2012 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide his representation within stipulated time. Petitioner got arrears of salary from 15.11.2000 thereafter and had again pursued a claim for arrears of salary from 1.1.1989 till 15.11.2000 which was also paid to him, admittedly as per statements made at para -25 of the writ petition. He has superannuated on 31.1.2014. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed seeking payment of interest on arrears of salary from 1.1.1989 which according to him have been paid after expiry of 22 years thereafter and on the basis of recognition of his service vide notification dated 9.2.2011.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent -State submits that when petitioner approached this Court for release of arrears of salary pursuant to recognition of his service vide notification dated 9.2.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 3530 of 2012, no such direction was passed in his case for payment of interest over the amount, as claimed now. It is their case that notification dated 9.2.2011 clearly stipulates that arrears of salary post 15.11.2000 would be paid by the State of Jharkhand and arrears of salary prior to that would be dependent upon agreement between the successor State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. It is also their case that petitioner admits that the entire claim for arrears of salary from 1.1.1989 have been paid. Therefore, claim of interest on such ground is wholly uncalled for.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the certain orders passed at Annexure -6 in the case of Anandi Lugun vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 3392 of 2012 dated 29.8.2012 and Annexure -6/A in the case of Arbind Pathak vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 2048 of 2010 along with analogous cases dated 4.2.2013 submits that there was direction to pay interest at a particular rate if the amount claimed on account of salary is not released. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the aforesaid relevant material facts pleaded. The whole issue relating to recognition of services of teaching/non -teaching employees of the Project Schools were finally considered by the three man committee appointed by the State of Jharkhand pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626 -75 of 2001 vide judgment dated 3.1.2006. Pursuant to three man committee report, State Government deliberated over the matter and issued notification dated 9.2.2011 recognizing the services of certain teaching/non -teaching employees. They incorporated conditions of payment of arrears of salary that accrued on their recognition of service with effect from 1.1.1989. The salary of the petitioner from 1.1.1989 has also been paid thereafter for which he pursued W.P.(S) No. 3530 of 2012. The judgment passed in the said writ petition did not stipulate any grant of interest. Even otherwise if the petitioner's claim relating to service was recognized after a series of litigation on the subject and on the report of 3 man committee only in February, 2011, claim of interest over such arrear accruing from 1.1.1989 is not tenable on any legal ground. In any case, once such plea of arrears was raised and no interest was directed by the Court in the matter, this Court does not find necessary to issue an order for grant of interest/penal interest over the payment of arrears of salary for such a length of time. Even otherwise, if such course is adopted that would entail an unnecessary burden upon the State Exchequer which is wholly uncalled for. The writ petition is therefore without merit and is accordingly, dismissed.;