IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 17743 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.11.2009 Bachan Singh ....Petitioner through Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents through none CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) The petitioner by way of the instant petition has made a prayer that he be granted interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity released to him. The petitioner, who was working as a Librarian, retired from the service of respondent No.2 in the year 2001. His gratuity and some other retiral benefits were not released to him as a result of which he made a representation and also served a legal notice upon the respondents, but the respondents did not respond to the same which forced the petitioner to file a writ petition which was disposed of on 19.8.2004 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 2.7.2004 by passing a speaking order. Pursuant thereto the respondents decided the representation of the petitioner and released the gratuity and other retiral benefits to him by passing an C.W.P.No. 17743 of 2009 -2- order dated 2.11.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that since 2001, when he retired, till 2004, when the gratuity was released to him, the respondents had no justifiable reason to withhold this benefit and therefore, he was entitled to interest on such delayed payment. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is misconceived. The order determining the rights of the petitioner was passed in the year 2004 and no justifiable reason has been given in the petition as to why the petitioner kept sleeping over his rights for such an inordinate long period. The remedy for a legally enforceable right has to be availed of within a reasonable time. The courts ought not to interfere in cases where a person without any plausible explanation chooses not to knock the doors of the court in the event of the violation of such enforceable rights. In the instant case more than 5 years have elapsed since the passing of the order releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner. The denial of interest for the delayed payment was a cause that accrued to him at that point of time and going by the law of limitation even a suit would be barred today when the petitioner has made a grievance of the denial of interest. This court is thus of the opinion that the petition is highly belated and does not warrant any interference. Dismissed. 19.11.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss