IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11812 of 2009 B.S. Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1971. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 27.11.1998. Even as Sub Divisional Engineer, the petitioner remained posted at Ambala. Subsequently, he was transferred to Palwal from where he retired on 31.10.2003, after serving the department for 33 years. Just prior to his retirement, the petitioner was served a charge sheet on 20.10.2003 for proposing the action under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The counsel for the petitioner would say that the charge sheet was false and fabricated and on that count his claim for retiral benefits were put to prejudice. The petitioner though was released provisional pension but other pensionary benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension were not released to the petitioner. The respondents took 6 years to conclude the inquiry. As per the inquiry report issued on 28.01.2009, the petitioner has been exonerated of all the allegations made. It is, thus, clear that the amount of gratuity and leave encashment, which was withheld was not justified. The counsel for the petitioner would refer to policy Civil Writ Petition No. 11812 of 2009 -2- instructions, Annexure P-4, which clearly provides that when an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of retirement is clearly exonerated and cleared of all the charges, the retiral benefits due to him should be paid alongwith interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Thus, even the Government instructions would support the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest from the date of retirement to the date of payment. The submission by Mr. Rathee that attempt was made by the petitioner to mislead the Court and that he had filed the writ petition once entire reitral benefits now have been released to him also not help the cause. The amount has been released but after 6 years of retirement and the policy instructions referred to above would clearly say that in such cases, the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Directions are issued to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of gratuity as well as on the leave encashment which was paid to the petitioner with delay of 6 years. August 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE