IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.13572 of 2008 Decided on : May 19, 2010 Pritam Singh …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kurian Juseph, C.J.(Oral) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for pensionary benefits. He retired from service on 31st August, 2005. It is seen from the reply that the GPF amount had already been released and pension had also been sanctioned, on 23rd February, 2006 and 19th May, 2006, respectively. 2. As far as the interest on the GPF is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to statutory interest for the same and if that is not paid it will be open to the petitioner to claim the same. As far as the delay in making of payment is concerned, we find that there is no delay, since in less than one year the pension has been released, despite the objection regarding the involvement of the petitioner in a motor accident case. 3. So far as DCRG is concerned, it is seen from the reply that it has been withheld, on account of pendency of an appeal against MACT award No.14-S/2 of 2006/2000 of the MACT Shimla. …2… 4. We do not think that pendency of an appeal shall be a reason for withholding the DCRG due to the petitioner. That there was no criminal case, against the petitioner. Even if a driver is found negligent in a MAC case but acquitted in Criminal Case, his DCRG has to be released. However, in this case there is no such question, since the petitioner was not charge sheeted and the FIR itself had been cancelled. 5. Therefore, we direct the respondents-Corporation to release the DCRG due to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition. 6. We find that the MACT had decided the case on 20th November, 2006, in which there is a finding that the petitioner was not negligent. We find from the said award that the FIR had also been cancelled and the petitioner had not been charge-sheeted before the Criminal Court. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate prescribed under the Rules, from 20th November, 2006 on the DCRG. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ) Chief Justice. ( Justice Surjit Singh ) May 19, 2010(sd) Judge.