CWP No. 18610 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18610 of 2009 Date of Decision : 4.12.2009 Roshan Lal .......... Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This writ petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to claim interest @ 12% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits paid to the petitioner, after a period of four years. It is not in dispute that prior to filing the present writ petition the petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 5568 of 2007 claiming retiral benefits along with interest. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by passing the following order :- “As per the averments made in the written statement, the cheques in the sum of Rs. 2,80,231 and Rs. 2,671/- have been handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted the said chques subject to the calculations. In view of the above, the present writ CWP No. 18610 of 2009 2 petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. If the petitioner finds that amount has not been properly calculated, he may submit representation to the respondents. The same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law expeditiously.” The petitioner thereafter submitted his own calculation claiming therein that a sum was due along with interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as the calculations were wrong he raised additional claim along with interest. However, the respondent admitted that approximately Rs. 47,000/- ( Rupees forty seven thousand only ) was paid less, which the petitioner was paid only after invoking of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. The representation made by the petitioner seeking interest has been declined. In the contempt petition again the petitioner raised claim of interest, however, this Court did not proceed further with the contempt proceedings when the alleged contemner paid him the balance payment. Liberty was, however, granted to the petitioner to agitate his claim in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of A.J. Randhawa, Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) Vs. State of Punjab 1998(1) SCT 343, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 12% on delayed payment and further that the writ claiming interest is competent. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law that when a relief is claimed and the same is not granted it is deemed to have been considered CWP No. 18610 of 2009 3 and rejected. Therefore, as in the previous writ the relief of interest was claimed but was not granted, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the claim regarding interest again. The petitioner can also take no benefit from the liberty granted to him in the contempt proceedings to proceed for claim of interest in accordance with law. It is well settled law that in view of the principle of res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a claim is raised and not granted, it is deemed to have been considered and rejected and the party can not re-agitate the same in the subsequent proceedings. The authority relied upon by the petitioner also has no application to the facts of the present case. No merit. Dismissed. 4.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE