IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20046 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 20.08.2009 Smt. Vidyawanti and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Munisha Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 20.2.2008, whereby the representation filed by them claiming interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pension, on account of revision of pay scales, has been rejected. In the present case, Shri Radhey Sham (husband of petitioner No.1) and petitioners No.2 and 3 retired from the services of Municipal Council, Sonepat, on 28.2.1994, 30.6.1993 and 30.6.1994, respectively. In view of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, pay scales of the CWP No. 20046 of 2008 -2- employees of the State Government were revised with effect from 1.1.1996. The said benefit was not extended to the employees of the Municipal Committees/Councils in the State of Haryana. Vide memo dated 30.7.2004 (Annexure P-4), in compliance with the direction of this Court in CWP No. 14644 of 2001, titled as Ram Chander versus State of Haryana, decided on 3.11.2003, it was decided to grant the revised pay scales to all the employees of the Muncipalities in the Haryana State on the pattern of Government employees, subject to the decision of the pending SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the SLP was dismissed, and vide memo dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure R-1), a direction was issued to all the Municipal Committees/Councils to grant the revised pay scales to all the employees of Municipalities in the Haryana State and release the arrears of their respective employees from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1999. In pursuance of the said letter, arrears of the revised pension was paid to the petitioners in the months of December, 2005 and January, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation for grant of interest on the delayed payment. Their representation was rejected on the ground that immediately after receiving the memo dated 19.7.2005, without any further delay, the amount was paid, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for any interest. The petitioners have challenged the said order in the instant petition. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have arbitrarily and intentionally delayed in releasing the arrears of pension CWP No. 20046 of 2008 -3- on the basis of the revised pay scales, therefore, they are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment. He submitted that the decision to revise the pay scales of all the employees of the Municipalities in the Haryana State with effect from 1.1.1996 was taken in July, 2004, but in spite of that, arrears of revised pension was not released till December, 2005/January, 2006. After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, the respondents did not make any deliberate or inordinate delay in releasing the arrears of the revised pension to the petitioners. After dismissal of the SLP, vide memo dated 19.7.2005, a direction was issued to release the arrears. Within five months of the said letter, arrears of the revised pension were released to the petitioners. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the respondents were fully justified in rejecting the claim of interest made by the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. August 20, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE