IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2863 of 2010. Decided on: 24th July, 2010. Bhupinder Singh Gill. ….. Petitioner. Versus Secretary, HPSEB and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the impugned Annexures PD and PH dated 20.6.2009, 8.6.2009 and 24.4.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the gratuity in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ Rs.12 percent per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 31.7.2009. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay full pension to the petitioner on the basis of the pay fixed vide Annexure PC on 1st Oct. 1999.” The petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.7.2009. However, the benefits due to him have not so far been disbursed. It is seen from the reply that there was a dispute as to the fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the 2 year 1999. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, the verification of the records was done at the time of fixation of the pension and the pensionary benefits. We are afraid that the contention cannot be appreciated. In the establishment like that of the respondent, there has to be periodical audit and in case any mistake had crept in, the same should have been corrected at the appropriate stage. It is seen that the impugned Annexure PH, order is passed one year after the retirement of the petitioner and that too without notice to him. That conduct cannot be justified. Therefore, we set aside Annexure PH, office order dated 24.4.2010. In case the pay is to be refixed, the same shall be done only with notice to the petitioner and that liberty has to be exercised, if so advised within a period of two months from today and if not it shall be taken that the respondent-Board has dropped the steps for the re-fixation. In any case, we make it clear that in view of the long delay, even assuming that there was a mistake in re-fixing the pay, there shall be no recovery in that regard. The petitioner has retired on 31st July, 2009. There is no case for the respondent-Board that the delay in settlement of the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner has occurred on account of any mistake on the part of the petitioner. Even for verification of the service records, it is seen that the respondent-Board has taken about nine months. The undisputed portion could have been disbursed. 3 We find that despite the interim order dated 2.6.2010, the undisputed amount has not been disbursed. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in staking the claim for interest on pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the undisputed portion of the pension and pensionary benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month from today along with 6% interest from 1.1.2010 till the date of disbursement. This shall be done within a month on production of a copy of this judgment. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 24th July, 2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.