IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 254/2011 Decided on:31.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Ram Prashad Sharma. …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Appellant had approached the learned Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.(M) No.288/2004. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 17.7.2006. Operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “It may be pointed out that the department in the matter has not acted in the manner as expected. The draft charge-sheet was required to be prepared vide endorsement dated March 13, 2003 but was served on September 30, 2003 i.e. after more than six months of the order to prepare the same and after having served the charge-sheet is sitting over the matter for more than two and half years without any further action. Evidently a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 condemnable state of affairs. The inaction on the part of respondents, even if their action of withholding the retiral benefits of the applicant may be justified has added to the agony of the applicant without any reasonable excuse which cannot be perpetuated. In view of above I am of the view that interest of justice will be met if some retiral benefits are ordered to be released in favour of the applicant subject to security and the respondents are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry in a time bound manner. In view of above, the respondents are directed to release the amount of DCRG ` 1,95,195/- to the applicant within four weeks on furnishing a security bond by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Registrar or in his absence Asstt. Registrar of this Tribunal and the respondents are further directed to complete the departmental enquiry against the applicant within six months. The original application is disposed of in terms of the above orders. No order as to costs.” 2. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma submits that the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner has resulted in his exoneration. Appellant has been paid a sum of ` 1,95,195/- on 21.8.2006 without any interest. Appellant filed another original application bearing O.A. No. 1583/2007 seeking direction to the respondents to pay interest on the D.C.R.G amounting to ` 1,95,195/-. The same was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP (T) No. 15371 of 2008. Learned Single Judge disposed of the same and held that since the appellant has not been paid any interest at the time of the 3 disposal of the O.A. (M) No. 288/2004, he could not seek interest in the collateral proceedings on the D.C.R.G. amounting to ` 1,95,195/-. 3. We are of the considered view that the appellant was entitled to interest as per rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No.II appended thereto, which reads thus: “(2) Interest for delayed payment of Retirement/Death Gratuity to be at the rate applicable to GPF deposits.- 1. It has been decided that where the payment of DCRG has been delayed beyond three months from the date of retirement, an interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposits will be paid to retired/dependants of deceased Government servants. 2. The Administrative Ministries are requested to ensure that in all cases where interest has to be paid on Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity because of administrative delay, action should be taken against the officer responsible for the delay. *** 5. (a) The rate of interest mentioned in para 1 above will be applicable in all cases where the DCRG has not been paid as on date of issue of this OM. 6. All existing instructions relating to interest rate payable by the Government or the employees, as the case may be, will cease to operate with effect from the date of issue of this OM.” 4. It is also evident from the operative portion of the judgment rendered in O.A. (M) No. 288/2004 that a sum of ` 1,95,195/- was directed to be released in favour of the appellant on furnishing security bond by him. We 4 are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has erred in law by not allowing the interest on D.C.R.G. amounting to ` 1,95,195/-. 5. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to interest @ 8.5% on the delayed payment of D.C.R.G. The interest be released and paid to the appellant within a period of 12 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the competent authority, i.e. Principal Secretary (Forest), Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that the appellant is entitled to interest only with effect from 30.9.2003 till 2.8.2006 on the amount of ` 1,95,195/. The security bond furnished by the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 17.7.2006 shall stand discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 31.8.2011 *awasthi*