2L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB. HON’BLE $HRI DHERENDRk MISHRA‘ & HOW§LE SHRI RN. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Appeal No. 233 of 2008 _A_ppellam petitioner Baby T. Vargis, S/o Late T. Vergis, aged about 64 year, occupation retired Accounts Officer, Rlo Q.No.F-10 (EWS), Padmanabhpur, Distt. Durg (CG) Versus Respoadents 1. MP. Housing Board through the Commissioner, Pariyavas, Mother Teresa Road, Bhopal (MP) 2. The Housing Commissioner, MP. Housing Board, Pariyavas, Mother Teresa Road, Bhopai (MP) The Chief Accounts Ofhcer, F&A, Chief Accounts Officer, MP Housing Board, Pariyavas, Mother Teresa Road, Bhopal (MP) The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 3. Present: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant. Mr.’Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3rd November, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishm .I The appellant has preferred this writ appeal against the order dated 28‘“ August, 2008 passed in W.P.No.2426l04, whereby the petitioner‘s writ petition for direction to the respondents to award interest @ 14.5% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was paid 90% of the pension amount on 31 .8.2001 and 75% of the gratuity amount on 5.9.2002, however, rest of the amount against the aforesaid retiral dues was paid to him only on 16.6.2003, though in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 29.1.2001 warning was issued ~to the petitioner on 20‘” June, 2002. Thus, there was delay of one year in release of remaining amount of the pension and gratuity and the petitioner was entitled for interest over the same @ 14.5%. However, by the impugned order it has been held that delay was on account of pendency of chargesheet and enquiry against the petitioner and it cannot be held that delay in making payment of pensionary benefit and gratuity was on account of fault of the officers. It was vehemently argued that , after charge sheet, the appellant was at least entitled for interest towards delay after warning was issued to him. l W t 9% d order and con$idering that the gne sheet was After going through the impu men’t towards pension and gratuity tion of was the withheld appeHant/petitioner as charge and entire ereafter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single superahnua payment was made th nt of pensionary benefit ot beeause of n this appeal, Judge has rightly heid that delay in making payme ult of the officers cf the respond misse Pay pending at the time of and gratuity was en account of pendency of charge sheet and n ents. There is no substance i missed. //, y// fa the WNee to be dis d and is! accordingly, dis h Sd/- 3 Dhirendra Mishra Judge i i i é t l‘”‘*r'di§4i§rnfei a r ’“ . 4 , w ..