CWP No. 10500 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10500 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 12, 2010 Dr. Romila Goyal .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement on 01.10.2006. The petitioner was relieved on 07.02.2007. The petitioner applied for retiral benefits on 22.11.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that certain retiral benefits were released in the year 2007 itself. Some payments, however, were made late. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that there were serious allegations against the petitioner of doing private practice. 4. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the CWP No. 10500 of 2009 2 respondent concedes that no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and there were no departmental inquiries pending or concluded, which would give a right to the respondents not to release retiral benefits. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 6. Ordinarily, an employee is required to initiate papers for release of pensionary benefits six months before retirement. In the case in hand, the petitioner applied for release of retiral benefits on 22.11.2007. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly contends that the delay in release of retiral benefits may be taken into account w.e.f. 21.05.2008 i.e. six months of the application made by the petitioner for release of retiral benefits viz. 22.11.2007. 8. In the reply, the respondents have made reference to intra- department communication. In my considered opinion, the rights of the petitioner to release of retiral benefits cannot be delayed on account of intra- department communication. The respondents have not pointed out in any manner the fault of the petitioner in causing delay. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 9. This petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 21.05.2008 on the retiral benefits paid thereafter. The interest shall be paid within a period of 2 months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 12.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?