IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.13297 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 26, 2011. Manorma Joshi (Sidhu) .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was a Principal (College Cadre) in the Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab. The facts mentioned in the petition indicate that she had a troublesome service career. The petitioner was charge-sheeted, enquiry was held and vide an order dated 15.4.2005, her one increment with cumulative effect was stopped. She challenged this order in Civil Writ Petition No.9990 of 2005 which was allowed and the above stated order was quashed. The State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment dated 23.10.2006 which was dismissed on 20.7.2007. CWP No.13297 of 2008 [2] It may be mentioned here that the petitioner had already retired from service w.e.f. 30.4.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. Some of the retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner belatedly due to pendency of the above mentioned case, giving rise to this petition wherein she now seeks interest on the delayed payments. The respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer maintaining that:- “That as per order dated 21.9.2004, she was granted 90% provisional pension amounting to Rs.13014/- vide order dated 21.9.2004 and 90% Gratuity amounting to Rs.3,15,000/- vide order dated 7.12.2004 was also released to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court Punjab through judgment dated 23.10.2006 only set aside the inquiry proceedings as well as the Government order dated 15.4.2005 vide which her one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. But, the Hon'ble High Court did not grant her the relief of interest at all on the consequential benefits. In spite of the judicial proceedings the Department sent her pension case to the Accountant General, Punjab which was returned by the Accountant General, Punjab with the remarks that the “Pension case may be sent after final decision of the Court case.” It appears from the above stated plea taken by the respondents that the petitioner's case was sent to the Accountant General, Punjab for the release of pension and other retiral dues but it was returned with the remarks that the same be sent after final decision of the Court case. No motive can be attributed to the authorities in such like situation. However, CWP No.13297 of 2008 [3] the fact remains that the amount payable to the petitioner immediate on her retirement, kept lying with the respondents. The petitioner is, therefore entitled to simple interest on that amount. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent that the petitioner be paid interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.8.2007, i.e., immediate after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition till the actual realization of one or the other retiral benefits. The interest shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. August 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE