IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14486 of 2008. Decided on: 13.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Ravi Kant. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para No. 7 (i) & (ii):- “7 (i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the interest @ 18% per annum to the applicant on the payments of DCRG and commuted value of pension which were released to the applicant after undue delay i.e. on 28.2.2006 and 28.3.2006 respectively.. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to release the arrears of D.A. Rs. 5863/- and the balance payment of Rs. 5,000/- of benevolent fund along with interest w.e.f. the due date.” 2. In the reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3 on merits:- “3. As already submitted in the preliminary submissions that the applicant retired from service as Booking Clerk on 31.7.2005 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The orders were received on 31.7.2005 from the Divisional Office HRTC Dharamshala and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 same were duly communicated to the applicant on the same date, as per the directions of the Divisional Office Dharamshala, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-1 and the same were passed in view of the application of opting under the VRS scheme. Copy of the application dated 7.12.2004 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-2. Consequent upon the option of the applicant for the retirement under the said scheme the applicant was told time and again to tender the requisite documents concerned with the DCRG and pension cases i.e. three passport size photographs of the wife of the applicant, date of birth certificate of the wife of the applicant, Form No. 3 & 5, Form No. 1-A for the commute value of the pension, but the applicant did not supply the same oto the office concerned and the same were supplied in the month of September 2005, which was signed by the applicant on 5.9.2005 copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure R-3, that the date of birth proof of the wife of the applicant was submitted on 20.8.2005 copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-4. That after receiving complete documents for DCRG and commute value of pension, the documents pertaining to the applicant were sent to the head office at Shimla on 12.9.2005. That in between the corporation passed the orders for the payment of 50% DA for merging in the basic pay vide head office order No. Pay:2-26(96) DA dated 15.9.2005, the case of the applicant was returned by the head office and thereafter doing the needful the case of the applicant was returned to the head office in the month of November 2005. That the head office Shimla passed the orders for releasing the payment of the DCRG vide memo No. 9E-Pension/K- 1670/05 dated 8.2.2006 copy of the same is 3 annexed as Annexure R-5. That in regard to not releasing the payment of arrear of the DA it is further clarified that audit objection was raised by the audit party that excess payment of the house rent to the HRTC employees at Pathankot. The employees of Pathankot had filed a case against the above said objections for recovery of the house rent. As and when the court decides the case further action shall be taken as per the orders of the head office the benevolent fund of Rs. 5000/- has been paid to the retiree under the VRS scheme, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-6. That the assertions made in the original application are all vague far from facts and does not transpire confidence. Hence the present OA is not maintainable in the eyes of law.” 3. The records reveal that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in paying the amount of retiral benefits to the petitioner. It being so, he is not entitled for any interest on this count. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas, other retirees have been paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as benevolent fund, he has been paid only Rs. 5,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner to this effect shall be considered by the respondents within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 13, 2011. (cr) 4