IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7927 of 2008. Decided on: 5.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri N.S. Bekta … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Nemo. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner retired from his service on 31.3.1998. He was paid the gratuity on 1.8.1999, however, no interest was paid on this amount of Rs. 1,49,783/-. The petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 18.8.1999. He was apprised that the delay in release of gratuity was due to registration of F.I.R. However, subsequently, the case was declared as untraceable on 8.3.1998. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of not paying interest on the gratuity was bad in law. He has relied upon Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the instructions appended thereto. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the delay has occurred due to registration of F.I.R. and in these circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to any interest on the gratuity amount. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner has superannuated on 31.3.1998. He was entitled to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on 31.3.1998. However, the same was released to him on 1.8.1999 without any interest. The only explanation given by the respondent-State in the reply is that the delay has occurred due to theft of Government vehicle. In the present case, F.I.R. was registered in the year 1997 and the case was closed being untraced. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated either against the petitioner or other persons. In these circumstances, it was not open to the respondents to wrongly with-held the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,49,783/- with effect from 31.3.1998 to 1.8.1999. The petitioner was entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as per Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner in the present case cannot be blamed in any manner for causing delay in claiming his retrial benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner interest at the rate applicable to G.P.F. deposits as per instruction No. 2 appended to Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This 3 amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 5, 2009. (cr)