CWP No.15963 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No.15963 of 2008 Date of decision : September 9, 2008 * * * * * Union of India and others ............Petitioners Versus Madan Mohan Devgan and another ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * * M.M KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Union of India is directed against the order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity `the Tribunal') in OA No.781-PB-2006. The Tribunal has allowed the claim made by the applicant-respondent with regard to his pensionary and other retiral benefits. Objection of the petitioner that the original application was inordinately delayed has been overruled by the Tribunal by placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme CWP No.15963 of 2008 2 Court in the case of S.R Bhanrale Vs. Union of India and others, AIR, 1997 SC 27 and this Court in the case of State of Punjab through Collector, Patiala Vs. Amar Singh, 1990(1) SLR, 762. The other objection that the applicant-respondent had failed to submit pension papers in time and due to that the pension could not be released has also been overruled by observing that it was the duty of the petitioner-Department to get all the pension papers complete. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has failed to show that they had even written any letter to the applicant-respondent or entered into any correspondence for release of his pension and that despite the aforementioned discharge of obligation, the applicant-respondent had failed to file request. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioners could not be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong. Eventually, a direction has been issued to the petitioners to release the pension and other retiral benefits to the applicant-respondent for which a PPO from due date has already been issued with arrears. The applicant-respondent was also held entitled to interest @ 6 % per annum from the date its accrual till the actual date of payment. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. The interest of 6% per annum imposed by the Tribunal is insignificant because the rising prices from 1980 to 2008 would not even compensate the aforementioned interest awarded by the Tribunal. In any case, once Tribunal has exercised discretion in awarding interest, we are not inclined to wipe CWP No.15963 of 2008 3 it out by issuing a direction. The order passed is just and fair. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE September 9,2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE