1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15039 of 2008. Date of Decision: 20th April, 2011. Joginder Lal ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & another …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.M Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G.for the Respondents No. 1 to 4. Ms. Anita Dogra, Vice counsel For respondent No.6. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Undisputably, petitioner retired on 31st October, 2005 and received his retiral benefits in the month of January, 2007. There is delay of more than 1½ years in release of such benefits. However, respondents have partly explained the delay. The respondents sent the papers to the Office of the Accountant General on 30th June, 2005. They were returned back on 30-9-2005 with an objection with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement to the pay scale. The Department processed the same and again submitted the papers to the office of the Accountant General on 7-11-2006. The papers were processed and final decision taken on 6-12-2006. The amount towards pension, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 gratuity and leave encashment stands paid to the petitioner in the month of January/April, 2007. Ordinarily, respondent No. 3 was obliged to process the papers and submit the same at least 6 months prior to the date of retirement of the employee. In the instant case, it was done just 2 months prior to the date of retirement of the employee. The respondents also did not take any action, on the specific direction of the Office of the Accountant General of paying provisional pension for a period of 6 months to the petitioner. Noticeably, it took 13 months for the respondent-Department for reprocessing the papers and removing the objection raised by the office of Accountant General. True, the Department would have taken some time to do the needful, but removing the objection with regard to petitioner’s entitlement to the scale, would have not taken more than 6 months. 2. The respondent-Department failed to process the papers expeditiously and in accordance with the relevant Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972. Petitioner has been deprived of his retiral benefits without any fault on his part. It is not the case of the respondents that certain formalities to be performed by the petitioner remained un-fulfilled. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to interest at least for a period of 8 months on the amounts disbursed to him in only in the month of January/April, 2007. It is clarified that interest is payable only on these amounts and no other amounts paid subsequently. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the said period. A direction is issued to respondent/Department to pay the same within a period of 4 months 3 from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Direction is also issued to respondent No. 2 to institute an inquiry and ascertain the cause of delay and fix responsibility. Needful be done within a period of 6 months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stand disposed of. However, respondent No. 2 shall file his personal affidavit explaining the action taken in the matter. Be listed thereafter. ( Sanjay Karol), Judge April 20, 2011 (Priti)