IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7079 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2011 Narottam Ram Thakur ..Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & Ors. …respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral). The petitioner, by means of this petition, has claimed that his retiral benefits have not been paid despite the fact that he retired on 31st March, 2010. This petition was filed in this Court on 10th November, 2010 and notice was issued on 12th November, 2010. 2. On 26.11.2010 pension case of the petitioner was prepared and PPO was issued on 30.11.2010 and the arrears of pension were credited to the Saving Bank Account of the petitioner on 23.12.2010. Similarly, computed value of pension was calculated on 30.11.2010 and credited to his 2 Saving Bank Account on 20.12.l2010. The retirement gratuity was fixed on 1.12.2010 and paid on 16.12.2010. 3. As far as un-utilized leave encashment is concerned, the same was assessed on 4.12.2010 and paid on 16.12.2010. The only amount, which remains payable to the petitioner, is under the Group Insurance Scheme. According to the respondent-Board, form in this behalf has not been filled in by the petitioner and the same has been sent to his home address on 4.12.2010. 4. Normally, in pension cases the Department is expected to ensure that all processes are completed before the retirement of an employee. In fact, in this case also the Department in November, 2009 had started the process for fixing the pension and other retiral benefits due and payable to the petitioner. However, in the meantime revision of pay scales took place w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the revised pay scales were made applicable to the employees of the Board. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was again revised and submitted on 4.3.2010 for finalization of pensionary benefits. According to the Board, there has been delay in processing the case of the petitioner. The explanation of the Board is that due to revision of pay, pension of as many as 11000 retired employees of the Board had again to be revised and 100 employees are retiring every month. In all these cases, the impact of the revised pay scale was required to be taken into consideration. 3 5. Normally, this Court does not award interest for a period of three months after the retirement because such delay does take place in normal course. The entitlement for interest to an employee accrues after three months. However, I feel in this case the Board has made out a case for granting further time on account of the revision of the pay scale. The benefits of the revised scale were to be given to the employees of the Board. The Board had to re-fix the pay of the retiring employees in the new pay scales itself and in the case of more than 11000 retired employees pension was to be re-fixed. 6. Therefore, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, another period of three months should be granted to the Board for this purpose, so that the Board should have completed the entire process latest by 30th September, 2011. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on delayed payment of amount paid after 1st October, 2010 till the date when the amounts are paid/credited to his Saving Bank Account. 7. As far as Group Insurance claim is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest. However, it is made clear that in case the Group 4 Insurance Claim has not been paid, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within one month after the petitioner submits the Group Insurance Scheme Claim Form, duly signed by him. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. May 10, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge