IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 272 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.09.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Kalyan Singh Pathania. .....Petitioner. Versus Shrikant Baldi & another. .....Contemnors. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. For the contemnors: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Rejoinder stands filed. 2. Heard. Vide judgment dated 15.11.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5892 of 2008, Kalyan Singh vs. State of H.P. and another, the following direction was issued to the respondents: “4. The learned Dy. Advocate General, submits that there is always a grace period of three months for payment of retiral benefits to the retiree from the date of retirement. If it is so, interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable to the petitioner for the belated payment beyond the grace period of three months till the date of actual payment, which shall be paid within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month, failing which higher interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable.” 3. The petitioner had retired on 30.11.1998. However, retiral benefits such as commuted pension, gratuity and GIS were paid to him much after his retirement on 19.11.1999, 05.12.1999 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... and 05.04.2000, respectively. It was against this background that the above direction was issued to the respondents. 4. In reply, respondent No. 1 has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 4 to 6: “3. That after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court on 15.11.2010, the petitioner represented to the Principal of the college vide letter dated 18.12.2010 and the same was sent to respondent No. 2 i.e. Director Higher Education vide letter dated 20.12.2010 and respondent No. 2 after perusing the record and calculating the interest had sent the case to the Govt. for approval on 4.2.2011. The Govt. conveyed its approval to release the amount of delayed payments vide letter dated 20.5.2011. The respondent No. 2 sent the Bank Draft amounting to Rs. 22,526/- (twenty two thousand five hundred and twenty six only) to the Principal of GC Hamirpur with the direction to disburse the amount to the petitioner immediately. 4 to 6. That the judgment dated 15.11.2010 has been implemented, however there is procedural delay in implementing the judgment as explained in the preceding para 3 of reply for which replying respondent tender unconditional and unqualified apology.” 5. The reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 is akin to that of respondent No. 1. 6. Thus it is manifest that the petitioner has already been paid a sum of ` 22,526/- (twenty two thousand five hundred twenty six) as interest on account of delayed payment of the aforesaid retiral benefits. However, according to the petitioner, in case interest on delayed payment is calculated @ 6% per annum, he is entitled to a sum of ` 35,886/-. It is further stated that since the payment was made beyond the period granted by the Court under the aforesaid judgment dated 15.11.2010, he is entitled for higher interest @ 9% per annum in terms of the said judgment and the amount of interest in such case will be ` 53,830/-. ...3... 7. In view of the above, when the judgment stands implemented albeit the fact that there is dispute with regard to quantum of interest payable to the petitioner, there is no lapse on the part of the respondents verging on contempt of the Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek implementation of left-out part of the aforesaid judgment dated 15.11.2010, if any, by way of execution petition. 8. The petition so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 29th September, 2011 (virender)