1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6741 of 2008 Decided on: 22nd November, 2010. Ram Rattan ….. Petitioner. Versus Accountant General & others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Prem Lata, Advocate vice Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. No. 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(I) It is, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that the respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) and also to pay interest @ 18% per annum to the applicant from the date of retirement till actual payment is made.” 2. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, at paragraph 6, it is stated as follows: 2 “It is respectfully submitted that pension case of the applicant who had retired voluntarily from the Govt. Service w.e.f. 31.8.1998 was forwarded by the respondent Department vide its letter dated 6.7.1998 (Annexure A-3/T). On scrutiny of service book of the applicant, it was noticed that the applicant had resigned from the Central Govt. service rendered in Telecommunication Department w.e.f. 2.7.64 to 13.7.1772 to take up the appointment in H.P. Govt. w.e.f. 14.7.72. But there was no entry in the service book, if the applicant had resigned from the Central Govt. Service on Technical ground through proper channel to take up the appointment in another Govt./Department. As per Rule 26(2) of C.C.S. (P) Rules, 1972, a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent, under the Govt. where service qualifies. But as stated above, there was no such entry in the service book. Accordingly, the pension case of the applicant was processed and had authorised the admissible pensionary benefits after excluding the Central service rendered by the applicant in the Telecommunication Department w.e.f. 2.7.64 to 13.7.72 vide Certificate and Report dated 7.10.98 (Annexure A-4 to O.A.). A para Sr. No. 13 was also conveyed in the Certificate & Report in this regard. Commutation of pension was not done as the application for commutation of pension was not received with the pension case. The application for commutation of pension was forwarded by the respondent Deptt. vide their letter dated 3 24.9.1998. Accordingly, the commutation authority amounting to Rs. 66,372/- was issued vide authority letter dated 16.11.98 (Annexure A-5 to O.A). The pensionary benefits were calculated and authorised on the basis of pay in the pre- revised scale as certain clarification regarding commutation of pension @ 40% instead of 1/3rd of revised pensionary benefits in view of the notification dated 31.8.98 made by the Govt. of H.P. extending the benefit w.e.f. 1.1.96 were wanting. As stated above, the pensionary benefits were authorised in the pre-revised scale after excluding the Central Service, a clarification in this regard was again sought vide letter dated 25.1.99 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1). Though the same was called for at the time of issuing of C & R dated 7.10.1998 vide para 13 ibid. In the meantime, the applicant had represented to this office for allowing the additional weightage benefit of 5 years on account of voluntarily retirement which was not extended earlier as the same was not recommended by the Department at the time of submission of the pension case. However, on recommendation of the department, the pension case of the applicant was revised after allowing the benefit of 5 years treating qualifying service as 31 years vide revised Certificate & Report dated 12.3.99 (copt enclosed as Annexure R-2). Though clarification regarding commutation of pension @ 40% in the revised scale was not received, but to avoid hardship to the retiree the Pensionary benefits were revised in the revised scale. As stated above, the Central Service rendered by the applicant was excluded from the qualifying service 4 for want of certain clarification, the department was again requested to furnish the desired information vide letter dated 8.4.99 (copy enclosed Annexure R-3). On receipt of information form the department vide letter dated 26/4/99 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-4), the replying respondent after allowing the benefit of central service also limited to 2 years (maximum 33 years) had again revised, the pension (full pension) vide revised Certificate & Report dated 24.5.99 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-5) In view of above, since the case of the applicant remained under correspondence for want of certain informations, the contention of the applicant that his pension case was deliberately delayed by the respondent's No. 1 to 3 is not tenable, hence denied vehemently and not liable to pay interest on delayed pensionary benefits as alleged by the applicant.” 2. True, the petitioner has filed rejoinder refuting some of the stands taken in the reply. However, in view of the disputed questions of fact involved in this case, which require detailed investigation and appreciation of various aspects, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to award monetary compensation. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to take recourse to the ordinary civil remedy in the matter of both compensation and the interest. It is further made clear that in the event of the petitioner approaching the Civil Court, as above, the time taken by the petitioner for prosecuting this writ petition before this 5 Court and the application before the Administrative Tribunal shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 22nd November , 2010 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl) Judge.