CWP(T) No. 14497 of 2008 23.02.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired in the month of November, 2005. His retiral benefits ought to have been disbursed to him within a reasonable period. From the reply filed by the State it is admitted that the amount towards leave encashment was disbursed only on 24.1.2007. The reason for withholding the same is pendency of inquiry proceedings. The details thereof are not mentioned in the reply. In rejoinder petitioner has categorically refuted the stand about the pendency of any disciplinary proceeding/inquiry pending against him. According to him no inquiry was ever initiated against him. Consequently the stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law. Petitioner ought to have been disbursed his retiral benefits within a reasonable period. As such petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum on all amounts disbursed to him, starting six months after the date of his retirement. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. February 23, 2011 (PK)