CWP No.3089 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3089 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.11.2010 **** Swinder Singh Virdi . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Anu Pal, Asstt. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Wing of the PWD (Public Health) Department and was sent on deputation to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board w.e.f. 31.01.1977. He continued to serve the Board till his superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2002. No charge- sheet, disciplinary action or any other case(s) was pending against the petitioner, yet his pension papers were not accepted on the plea that his service book was incomplete and/or not available having been summoned in a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner for his promotional claim. This fact is evident from the communication dated 17.04.2002 (Annexure CWP No.3089 of 2009.doc - 2 - P1) between the petitioner’s parent Department and the Board, the relevant contents whereof reads as follows:- “1. It is not correct for your office to say that due to the service book of the retiree being in the Court, it cannot be ascertained as to which station(s) the retiree has been serving. The court file can be inspected after deposit of the required court fees then, it can be noted and ascertained on which stations the retiree has been served. 2. The place of posting of the retiree from 1.4.1980 to 31.3.2002 has not been mentioned and same may be informed.” 2. Finally, the service book was completed in the year 2006 only and on submission of the pension papers, the retiral dues were released on different dates in the year 2006-2007. 3. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment? 4. The reply-affidavits filed by the Board and the parent Department are full of the blame-game. It is additionally claimed that since the petitioner in his long service career remained posted at ‘different places’, it was an ‘enormous exercise’ to send the service book to various stations and get it completed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has been deprived of his retiral dues for a long period for no fault on his part as it was not within his control to get his service book CWP No.3089 of 2009.doc - 3 - completed. He is, therefore, undoubtedly entitled to be compensated for the delayed payments. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the respondents are directed to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 01.06.2002 to the petitioner, till the date of actual payment of retiral dues, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The question as to who caused the delay need not be gone into by this Court as it is for the Board and the Department to resolve their inter se dispute. 8. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 19.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE