IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. (T) No. 13313 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.8. 2011 Narinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Erstwhile Tribunal. The Tribunal was abolished as such the application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, and registered as CWP (T) No. 13313 of 2008. 2. The petitioner, who was working as Inspector in the respondent-corporation sought voluntary retirement from the respondent-corporation on 30.6.2001 after 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - putting in about 24 years service. On retirement, he was released part of gratuity amount on 27.4.2006. While prosecuting his case, the petitioner died on 19.9.2006 as such applications being CMPs(M) No. 767 of 2011 and 768/2011 were moved for substituting his wife Bina Devi and other legal representatives of the deceased. However, for the purpose of the present Smt. Bina Devi his widow is taken on record as legal representative of the petitioner, to prosecute the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, both these applications are allowed and disposed of. 3. The main grouse of the petitioner remains for the interest on delayed payments. The respondents resists this claim that the petitioner was never confirmed during his service and retired as an unconfirmed employee of the respondent-corporation and the Pension Rules 1972 are applicable to the respondent-corporation and for getting the pension and gratuity, the employee must be confirmed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. I failed to find out from the CCS (Pension Rules) 1972 that an un-unconfirmed employee is not entitled for any pension and gratuity. As a matter of fact, the Government of India’s decision below Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, aforesaid clearly mentions that there is no - 3 - distinction between a permanent and temporary employee in the application of the Pension Rules and the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to point out any contrary provision to the present one. Further the respondent-corporation had confirmed the petitioner Shri Narinder Singh vide letter No. HO/ 9E- Pension/N 816/2001 dated 15.10.2005 w.e.f. 8.8.1980 vide office order No. 8373-77 dated 21.1.2006. The gratuity amount should have been released to the petitioner along with interest on delayed payments as applicable. Since the interest part has not been paid to the petitioner, therefore, it is ordered that respondents No. 2 and 3 shall pay an interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment from the date it fell due, till the actual date of payment. 5. With these directions, the present petition stands disposed of. August 8, 2011 (Surinder Singh, (cm) Judge