LPA No. 18 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 18 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 19 .4.2011 Employees Provident Fund Organization ... Appellants Versus Smt. Santosh Devi and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG Hy. for respondent no.2 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that pension claim of the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 has been conceded vide letter dated 9.7.2010 sent by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and her claim has been settled by issuing Pension Payment Order sanctioning her pension w.e.f. 22.9.1999. It is patent that there was delay of more than 10 years in making payment of pension. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 would be entitled to interest @ 6 percent and her petition has been allowed to that extent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant- Provident Fund Commissioner at a considerable length. The only argument raised by the learned counsel is that the delay is not imputable to the appellant and therefore interest @ 6 percent should not have been awarded. LPA No. 18 of 2011 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of considered view that award of interest at a meager rate of 6 % for more than 10 years' delay is not unwarranted because the general principle of law is that pension should be released to the retiring employee as expeditiously as possible but not later than 2/3 months. It is precisely for that reason that the process of finalizing grant of pension is initiated by the employer six months before the actual date of retirement of the employee. Therefore, no interference is called for. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 19. 4.2011 Judge okg