IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1255 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 19, 2010 Ved Parkash Bali .. Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ishtbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act is directed against order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2009. According to the learned Single Judge, the benefit of interest on account of delay in payment of retrial benefits cannot be given to the appellant because the retrial benefits were released to the appellant without any unusual delay on the part of the respondent. The learned Single Judge has taken into account the explanation tendered by the respondent in its order dated 12.10.2006 which was passed in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in CWP No. 12610 of 2006 decided on 11.8.2006. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that settlement of account in respect of the appellant was undertaken efficiently and it was noticed that the appellant was promoted on 24.5.2004 as Secretary Market Committee from Accountant Market Committee and he was retired on 30.6.2005 (AN). Before granting him no due certificate, the Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) was directed to submit his report. The report was submitted on 2.8.2005 and amount of Rs.4824/- as outstanding interest pending against the appellant with the Market Committee, Balachour against House Loan was deducted and then no due certificate was issued on 21.11.2005. The appellant had made L.P.A. No. 1255 of 2009 (O&M) -2- representation on 20.11.1005 disputing some of the amount. Eventually the retiral benefits were paid to him in July/August, 2006. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the payment of interest is not warranted because the appellant had been paid the retiral benefits and the delay which has occurred is on account of certain dues which the appellant was required to deposit before issuance of no due certificate. The respondent department i.e. Panjab Mandi Board cannot be faulted for any delay. The learned Single Judge is, therefore, right in not awarding any interest. The appeal, therefore, does not warrant admission and is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. Kumar) Judge July 19, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge