IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17147 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.9.2010. Dharm Pal Phogat --Petitioner Versus Haryana Gramin Bank --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2009. At the time of his retirement some disciplinary proceedings were pending against him on the basis of charge sheet dated 23.1.2008. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that his pensionary benefits have been delayed. The details of the delayed payments of Provident Fund, leave encashment and gratuity are indicated in para 5 of the writ petition. Provident Fund was released on 22.6.2009, leave encashment on 9.9.2009 and gratuity was released on 8.10.2009. Thus, there seems to be delay in payment of these retiral benefits for 5 months, 8 months and 9 months. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on the delayed payments. Earlier also petitioner had filed CWP No. 6154 of 2010 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 6.4.2010 with a direction to decide the advance notice dated 20.10.2010 served by the petitioner. The advance notice has been decided vide the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has challenged this order only to the extent of claim of interest. I have perused the impugned order. CWP. No. 17147 of 2010 -2- The respondents have given the details of the disciplinary proceedings, which were concluded on 19.8.2009 and petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction of lower scale in his time scale i.e reduction by one stage in his incremental time scale. His basic pay was, accordingly, reduced from Rs. 22,900/- to Rs. 22,280/- and consequential recovery of Rs. 3552.80 has been ordered and recovered from his terminal dues. Even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has been released his Provident Fund. After termination of the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months, all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, the plea of the petitioner for claim of interest is totally uncalled for. The respondents were entitled to withhold some of the retiral benefits pending disciplinary proceedings as the same could have culminated in the severe punishment as well. I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.9.2010. lucky