IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5664 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.4.2010 D.S. Gill ....Petitioner. Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. K. L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-9) whereby interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues was declined to him and mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.6.2000 to 6.2.2008 on the amount of Rs.2,36,439/- which was released after a delay of 7 years and 9 months of his retirement. Notice of motion was issued and the respondents filed their written statement controverting the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch alleging that the entire amount due to the petitioner had already been paid in compliance with orders of this Court in the earlier proceedings and the petitioner had filed the contempt petition which was disposed of on 29.4.2009 wherein he was given liberty to file representation for the interest component of his claim, if any. CWP No. 5664 of 2009 -2- In view of the aforesaid statement of the respondents in the written statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation for the interest part of his claim. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the present petition is disposed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents claiming the interest on the payment which, according to him, has been delayed. It is directed that in case such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the concerned respondent by passing a speaking order and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of its filing. April 6, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE