* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6313/2000 G.C.AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S N Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S K Gupta, Adv. versus RESIDENT COMMISSINER BIHAR BHAWAN & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arvind Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 06.05.2008 1. The petitioner Late Mr. G C Aggarwal has filed the present writ petition for payment of pension and retirement benefits. The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant of Bihar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi on 1.4.1961 and retired on 31.10.1996 after rendering over 35 years of service. The petitioner has expired and his legal representations have been brought on record. 2. The petitioner was paid provisional pension and as per the averments made in the writ petition in spite of repeated visits full pension and retirement benefits were not paid. Before filing the writ petition on 6.5.2000 the petitioner had issued legal notice also. The writ petition was filed on 16th October, 2000 and notice was issued on 20th October, 2000. In spite of service the respondents filed counter affidavit on 16th September, 2002. In the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that the petitioner has been paid leave encashment, gratuity, group insurance and GPF pending final settlement. However, with regard to full pension and other retirement benefits it is stated that the petitioner had received promotions after 1968 without clearing departmental examination of Hindi and therefore he had been wrongly promoted. The respondents claim that they are entitled to recovery of excess payment of Rs.3,49,854/- as per Annexure A. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the excess amount and fill up the pension form and thereupon his pension will be cleared and the dues will be settled at the earliest. 3. Annexure A to the counter affidavit relates to payments made to the petitioner from the period 1968 onwards till his retirement on 31.10.1996. It is rather surprising that the respondent decided to make these calculations and scrutiny only after the writ petition was filed and that too in 2002, 6 years after the petitioner had already retired on 31.10.1996. The refund claim made is also for the period 1968 onwards. It is apparent that the respondents in order to cover up their lapse and failure to make the payment of pension, have now after writ petition was filed raised the issue of excess payment. 4. This aspect of excess payment was considered by this court on 11.8.2003 and after noticing the entire facts the respondent was restrained from recovering excess payment of Rs.3,49,854/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has drawn by attention to order dated 17.5.2007 wherein it is recorded that issue of recovery of excess payment is already settled. I have also examined the contention of the respondents on merits and agree with the findings and the reasons recorded in the order dated 11.8.2003. In fact Annexure A merely gives some calculations without specifying and stating how and why excess payment was made to the petitioner during the period 1968 to 31.10.1996. It is also not stated what action has been taken against the officers concerned who had sanctioned incorrect payment to the petitioner during this period. It is unfathomable as to how all along the petitioner was paid alleged excess amount from 1968 till 1998 without any objection and scrutiny. 5. I may note here that the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments today had admitted that in view of the orders dated 11.8.2003 and 17.5.2007, the respondent is not seeking to recover Rs.3,49,854/- and to that extent the matter can be treated as finally decided. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar however submitted that the said State is ready and willing to pay arrears of pension to the extent of difference between Rs.2,34,775/- (the amount paid) and Rs.3,01,703/- or Rs.66,928/-. It is pointed out that the calculation of Rs.3,01,775/- does not take into account the promotion which was given to the petitioner. If promotion given to the petitioner are taken into account the total amount payable to the petitioner will come to Rs.5,57,336/- as against the total payment made of Rs.2,34,775/-. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent but do not find any merit in the same. I may note here that the case of promotion of the petitioner was examined by Departmental Promotional Committee on 16.8.1985. The said Minutes have been filed on record. The Minutes record that the petitioner had been working as an Accounts Clerk from 1.9.1961 and had completed 25 years of service. Departmental Promotional Committee agreed to grant one time bound promotion to the petitioner. This was in spite of the fact that the petitioner had not cleared the departmental examination in Hindi. Committee recommended that Cabinet Secretariat (Co-ordination Branch) should grant exemption to the petitioner in view of the resolution passed by the Finance Committee. It is admitted that after 16.8.1985 the petitioner was paid and granted one time bound promotion. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent/State of Bihar does not mention that exemption was not granted by the Cabinet Secretariat (Co-ordination Branch). But it is admitted that the petitioner was continuously paid salary on the basis of one time bound promotion for 11 years from 1985 till 1996, when he retired. It is not the case of the respondents that exemption could not have been granted. The respondents by their conduct have granted exemption to the petitioner. After 11 years of service and payment and 6 years after retirement the respondent cannot be permitted to raise the plea that for 1985 promotion no exemption was granted. 7. The last question is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest. Learned counsel for the respondent/State of Bihar has submitted that interest should not be awarded as the petitioner had not filled up the requisite performa. It was the responsibility of the respondents to at least inform the petitioner about any form or performa which was required to the filled up for grant of full pension. No such letter has been placed on record except the letter dated 26th February, 2002. The said letter was written nearly 6 years after the petitioner had already retired. On the other hand the petitioner was paid only provisional pension after his retirement in 1998. 8. In view of the above the writ petition allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The petitioner will be paid arrears of pension of Rs.2,23,651/- and interest @ 8% per annum shall be paid w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The said payment is to be made within 8 weeks. In case the payment is not made within the said period, interest @ 18% per annum, shall be payable after 8 weeks on the principal amount. The legal representative of the petitioner will visit office of the respondent at Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi on 23rd May, 2008 at 3.30 p.m. and fill up the requisite forms and complete all formalities, if any. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA,J MAY 06, 2008 vld