C.W.P. No.20283 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20283 of 2011 Date of Decision: 08.11.2011 Faquir Chand Ex-Manager (D), (Retired) ....Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is contended that the petitioner retired on 29.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty upon the petitioner way back on 19.05.2000. However, the said order was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 16.09.2003 and the matter was remanded back to pass the fresh order. However, no action was taken on the same. As such, the said disciplinary proceedings stood closed. However, meanwhile, the petitioner retired on 29.05.2009. When no retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner, he made various representations to various authorities. As a result, the respondent authorities imposed a token recovery of ` 34,782/- vide order dated C.W.P. No.20283 of 2011 2 31.05.2010 and finally the retiral benefits were released as late as on 29.06.2011. No interest was paid on the delayed amount. It is contended that the action of the respondents in not deciding the disciplinary proceedings on time and before the retirement of the petitioner has resulted in delayed payment of the retiral benefits. As such, the delay was not on account of the fault of the petitioner. Still, the respondents released the said amount after almost two years without interest. The petitioner, accordingly, made representation on 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-6). However, the same has not been decided till date. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to the respondents to consider the present petition as a comprehensive representation and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. However, in case, the petitioner is found entitled to the interest on the delayed payment, the same shall be disbursed to him forthwith. In case, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by passing a speaking order. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 08.11.2011 JUDGE gurpreet