IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15141 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 25, 2010 GURBACHAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. SG Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. JS Puri, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner after giving benefit of 24 years of service under the Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.7.2008. Further prayer made is for award of interest on delayed payment of General Provident Fund and arrears. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined the services under the respondents as Helper on 13.1.1965. The petitioner retired on 30.6.2003 while serving as Multi Purpose Supervisor Civil Writ Petition No.15141 of 2009 2 with respondent No.5 i.e. Senior Medical Officer, Public Health Centre, Chinarthal Kalan, Fatehgarh Sahib. The respondents were required to release the retiral benefits which, however, was not done. The petitioner served a legal notice on 1.3.2008, however, no action was taken, whereupon the petitioner was constrained to file CWP 5681 of 2008. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in regard to the legal notice within two months. It has been pleaded that in pursuance to the order (Annexure P-1), vide order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), after five years of retirement of the petitioner, the amount of General Provident Fund amounting to Rs.1,14,333/- was released, however, without interest. The benefit of 24 years of service under the Assured Career Progression Scheme was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), and arrears of Rs.33,755/- were granted to the petitioner, without interest. A perusal of the reply does not show that the petitioner has been at fault in completing the formalities for release of retiral benefits. In view of the specific pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents are at fault for delay in release of retiral benefits and the fact that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents in their reply for delay in payment, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed payment. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 30.8.2003 to the petitioner on delayed Civil Writ Petition No.15141 of 2009 3 payment of retiral benefits, including on benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The respondents are further directed to revise the pension of the petitioner, as per the stand of the respondents taken in para- 6 of the reply (on merits) within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?