IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14011/2008 Decided on:3.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Dr. Diwan Sirkeck. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer (HPHS-1) in the Health and Family Welfare Department in the year 1974. He was charge-sheeted on 28.3.2002. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2002. He received the copy of charge-sheet on 8.7.2002. He filed reply to the same on 15.7.2002. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner on 12.10.2004. However, the respondents instituted de novo inquiry against the petitioner on the same 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 and similar charges on 9.3.2005. This decision of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No. 661/2005. The same was allowed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 2.12.2005. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to release forthwith all the retiral/pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner was released gratuity on 4.3.2006, leave encashment on 22.3.2006, commuted valuation of pension on 6.3.2006 and additional commuted valuation of pension on 7.7.2006. 2. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma has strenuously argued that respondents were liable to pay interest @9% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed payments of the retiral benefits, including, gratuity and leave encashment. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that since disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, his retiral/pensionary benefits were withheld. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has retired on 31.3.2002. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 28.3.2002. In fact, the copy 3 was received by him on 8.7.2002, to which he filed reply to the same on 15.7.2002. Petitioner has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer on 12.10.2004. However, strangely the respondents started de novo inquiry by sending fresh charge- sheet on 9.3.2005. This decision was assailed by the petitioner by filing original application bearing O.A. No. 661/2005. It is evident from the contents of para 12 of the reply that the learned Deputy Advocate General admitted before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Tribunal that de novo inquiry could not be initiated. The learned Tribunal quashed and set aside order dated 9.3.2005 and issued necessary directions to release forthwith all the retiral/pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Petitioner has been paid retirement gratuity amounting to ` 3,50,000/- on 4.3.2006, leave encashment amounting to ` 3,04,500/- on 22.3.2006, commuted value of pension amounting to ` 3,62,212/- on 6.3.2006 and additional commuted value of pension amounting to ` 28,440/- on 7.7.2006. 6. It is settled law by now that the pensionary/retiral benefits have to be worked out in advance and these have to be paid to the incumbent immediately after his retirement. In the instant case, there is inordinate delay in releasing the pensionary/retiral benefits on the part of the respondents. 4 Petitioner had already been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer on 12.10.2004. Respondents decided to conduct de novo inquiry by issuing a charge sheet on 9.3.2005 and this order was quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal on 2.12.2005. Petitioner was exonerated and was found innocent by the Inquiry Officer. In view of this, there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the retiral/pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the gratuity. He was required to be paid interest, as per rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No.II appended thereto. He was also entitled to reasonable interest on leave encashment, commuted value of pension and additional commuted value of pension. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the petitioner interest on gratuity, as prescribed under rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No.II appended thereto. Respondents are further directed to pay interest on all the retiral/pensionary benefits, including leave encashment, commuted value of pension and additional commuted value of pension @ 9% per annum within a period 5 of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3.3.2011 *awasthi*