IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 294 of 2008 Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Sansadhan Vikas Nigam, 11, Mohini Road, Dehradun & Others. …Petitioners. Versus Sh. Afzal Khan (Retd. J.E.) & others. …Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date of Decision : 13.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The issue involved in the instant writ petition pertains to the quantum of interest awarded by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand on delayed payment in respect of post retiral dues. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that interest awarded at the rate of 18 per cent is excessive, and that interest at the prevalent rate should have been awarded to respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 states, that respondent no. 1 will be satisfied, even if the interest is reduced to 8 per cent. 2. We are of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is just and proper. Accordingly, the instant petition is partly allowed. Interest awarded at the rate of 18 per cent by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand is ordered to be reduced to 8 per cent. The aforesaid interest in terms of the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand shall be released to respondent no. 1 within one month from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 3. Inspite of the determination rendered hereinabove, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, that respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, and as such, the liability to pay interest on delayed payment of Earned Leave Encashment should not have been fastened on the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the instant submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are 2 of the view that the instant assertion is clearly misconceived. The Uttarakhand Pey Jal has merely been required to release the payment to respondent no. 1 so that respondent no. 1 can enjoy the benefit of the same. Ultimately, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the interest component had to be recovered from the official/officer, who was held responsible for delay in release of encashment of Earned Leave to respondent no. 1. We, therefore, find no merit in the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel representing the Uttarakhand Pel Jal Nigam. Be that as it may, we are of the view that a direction deserves to be issued to the Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, as also, to the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to jointly constitute a Committee so as to fix the responsibility on the officer/official guilty of delay in release of the benefit of encashment of Earned Leave to respondent no. 1. On the report of the Committee, recovery of interest paid by the Uttarakhand Pay Jal Nigam shall be made from the official/officer found responsible. In case, no such liability can be fixed, then the burden of interest paid to respondent no. 1 shall be equally shared by the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam and the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. Needless to mention, that before effecting any such recovery, it shall be imperative on the concerned Corporation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the official/officer found guilty in causing the delay, in terms of the rules of natural justice. 4. The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 13.7.2010 Rathour