IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 6023/2008 Decided on:19.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Nand Lal Bhaik. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner worked with the Department of Animal Husbandry with effect from 16.5.1958 to 18.2.1977. Thereafter he remained on deputation with the Agriculture Complex at Solan of Himachal Pradesh University with effect from 19.2.1977 to 28.2.1987. He was permanently absorbed in the respondent No.3-University on 1.3.1987. He made representation in the year 1994 whereby he requested that the amount payable to the petitioner may please be calculated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 in lump sum and transferred/credited with respondent No.3- University before his retirement. Petitioner retired on 31.3.1996. His retiral/pensionary benefits were not released to him immediately on his retirement. It is evident from the documents placed on record by the petitioner and respondents with the replies that the matter remained under prolonged correspondence. There was a correspondence amongst the respondents. There was also prolonged correspondence with the office of Accountant General. Petitioner has been paid some of the retiral benefits on 1.5.1996 to the extent of Rs. 2,98,305/-. However, DCRG and leave encashment amounting to Rs. 2,51,166/- and 17,960/- were delayed and these amounts were finally released in the month of July/September, 1998. The PPO was issued to the petitioner on 14.12.1998. Respondents have not paid any interest on the delayed pensionary/retiral benefits. It is settled law that retiral benefits are required to be paid immediately after the retirement. In this case, though the petitioner had made representation in the year 1994, however, the finalization of the case was delayed by the respondents by entering into correspondence with each other and with the office of Accountant General. Respondents have not shown any urgency in the matter. Petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot be faulted with. Entire fault lies with the respondents 3 for delaying the retiral/pensionary benefits after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.3.1996. In view of this, respondents are liable to pay reasonable interest to the petitioner for the delayed pensionary/retiral benefits. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations, made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay and release the petitioner interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed retiral/pensionary benefits. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 19.6.2010 *awasthi*