IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 OM PARKASH DHINGRA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on delayed payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner retired from the post of Ziledar, while working in the office of Executive Engineer, Ropar Head Works Division, Ropar, on 31.10.2008. In para-3 of the petition, it has been pleaded that respondent No.2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Ropar Head Works Division, Ropar, sent the pension case of the petitioner, complete in all regards, to the Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, vide letter dated Civil Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 2 21.8.2008. The Accountant General, however, returned the pension papers to the petitioner with some objections, on 21.10.2008. The objections were removed by the Executive Engineer and the pension papers were again sent to the Accountant General with the service book of the petitioner. The pension was paid with effect from July, 2009 and gratuity was released on 22.10.2009. In this context, it has been pointed out that there has been a delay of about 12 months in release of retiral benefits. 3. Reply has been filed in court today by Shri Mahendra Singh, Deputy Accountant General (Pension) on behalf of respondent No.3. It has been said in the reply that incomplete pension case of the petitioner was received on 25.8.2008 from the Pension Sanctioning Authority, vide letter dated 21.8.2008, which was returned to the Pension Sanctioning Authority vide letter dated 21.10.2008, with some observations. The Pension Sanctioning Authority, however, resubmitted the pension papers to the office of the Accountant General on 27.1.2009, which were complete. The office of Accountant General authorised the pension, gratuity, etc. vide letter dated 6.5.2009, without there being any intentional delay on the part of the Accountant General's office. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the reply, in which it has been stated that the objections raised by the Accountant General's office were removed by the said respondents. 5. Neither the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 nor by respondents No.1 and 2 indicates infirmity on the part of the petitioner in causing delay. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2008. The correspondence Civil Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 3 between the Accountant General and the Pension Sanctioning Authority is an intra-department matter and because of that, delay cannot be caused in release of retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, the fact that the respondents have not pointed out any infirmity in the conduct of the petitioner in completion of papers, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.1.2009 onwards, till the release of payment. The payment of interest be made within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. September 27, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?