Regular Second Appeal No. 477 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 477 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.1.2009 *** State of Punjab .. Appellant VS. Gurdev Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The plaintiff-respondent stood retired from the service of the appellant-respondents on 31.1.2003. However, his service benefits and benefits of higher pay scale were released with delay, which led to the institution of a suit by him claiming interest @ 12% per annum thereupon. The appellant admitted the delayed payment, but pleaded procedural lapse, however, failed to substantiate the same. It is not disputed that the higher pay scale was granted to the plaintiff pursuant to the instructions dated 17.4.2000, but the payment of said benefit was made to him partly only on 26.8.2003 and remainder on 15.9.2003. Gratuity was released to him on 25.7.2003 whereas his leave encashment and commutation of pension were paid on 17.4.2004 and 2.2.2004 respectively. This rightly led the Courts below to conclude that since the retiral benefits and benefits of higher pay scale were released to the plaintiff with delay and, therefore, he is entitled to get interest thereupon. Interestingly, the learned trial court while decreeing the suit awarded the plaintiff interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment from the filing of the suit till its actual realization and directed the appellants to release the same within a period of two months, which mistake has been rectified by the learned First Regular Second Appeal No. 477 of 2009 2 Appellate Court by awarding interest on the delayed payment of higher pay scale, leave encashment and commutation of pension, excluding the interest on the amount of gratuity, while meticulously taking into account the period within which the plaintiff was to submit his pension papers and the date on which actually the benefits were released to him and thus, rightly modified the judgment of the learned trial court to the extent of grant of interest to the plaintiff, in the manner indicated above. The grant of interest of the plaintiff has penal element and thus, it cannot be said that the interest @ 12% on the delay payment and future interest @ 6% is excessive in any manner. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 27,2009 Jiten