IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4331/2008 Decided on:27.8.2009 ________________________________________________ Smt. Raj Aggarwal. …Petitioner. Versus The Director of Education and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . The petitioner submitted application seeking volunteer retirement on 12.9.1995. The same was accepted by the competent authority on 17.6.1996. The General Provident Fund amount was paid to the petitioner on 19.8.1996. The Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was paid to her on 5.9.1996. The commuted pension was sanctioned by the Accounts Office on 13.8.1996 and the payment was made on 15.11.1996. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate has vehemently argued that there is delay in release of the retiral benefits and his client is entitled to interest. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that there is no delay in releasing the retiral benefit in favour of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner has submitted application on 12.9.1995. The same was accepted by the competent authority on 17.6.1996. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was considered for the release of retiral benefits. The retiral benefits, as noticed above, have been released to the petitioner within a reasonable period. It is only in those cases where there is inordinate delay in the release of retiral benefits; the incumbent has to be granted the interest as per law. The respondents have explained the delay satisfactorily in the present case. The master-servant relationship has come to an end only on 17.6.1996 when the application preferred by the petitioner for volunteer retirement was accepted. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 27.8. 2009. *awasthi*