IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 330 of 2006 Devendra Bahadur Jain …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.7.2001. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was holding the rank of Executive Engineer in the Jal Sansthan. Despite his repeated demands and protestations, provisional pension as well as some other retiral benefits were released to the petitioner in the year 2006. He was paid final pension and all other remaining retiral benefits in the year 2009. 2. The solitary claim in the instant Writ Petition at the hands of the petitioner, during the course of hearing, was for payment of interest on account of delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner is strenuously opposed by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. He has pointed out various administrative exigencies, which came in the way of the respondents in finalising, as also, in releasing pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we 2 enquired from the learned counsel for the respondents, whether the petitioner was responsible for any such impediments, which resulted in the delayed release of pension and other retiral benefits to him. In response to the Court’s query, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly stated that although there were a number of reasons for not releasing pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner, yet none of them were as a consequence of any dereliction at the hands of the petitioner. 4. Having examined the issue in its totality and having arrived at the conclusion that non-release of pension and other rentiral benefits to the petitioner were based on administrative reasons within the scope of adjudication of the respondents themselves, wherein the petitioner was not remiss in any manner whatsoever, we are of the view that the petitioner’s retiral benefits, for whatever reasons, were retained by the respondents for a sufficiently long period of time. Having done so, the petitioner is liable to be compensated. Since the issue is purely monetary, the compensation can be adequately determined by awarding interest. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, even though the claim of the petitioner is for 18 per cent interest on account of delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits, we are satisfied that payment of interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum will be sufficient to compensate the petitioner for delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. 5. In view of the above, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents shall calculate and pay interest on delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits 3 to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 1.6.2010 Rathour