IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6926 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 11, 2009 Amarjit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent- Department to release retiral benefits of the petitioner. The details of the case are not required to be given in so much as it seems that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.19949 of 2006 titled CWP No.6926 of 2009 [2] `Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. The case was decided by Division Bench of this Court on 26.11.2007 while passing the following order:- “The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. At the time of his retirement two show cause notices were pending consideration against the Petitioner. The first show cause pertained to a recovery of Rs.1,05,030.40. The second show cause pertained to a recovery of Rs.84,119/-. The Petitioner was exonerated from the first show cause notice and the charge pertaining to the recovery of Rs.1,05,030.40 was dropped on 18.05.2005. As against the second show cause notice pertaining to the recovery of Rs.84,119/-, the proceedings have attained finality wherein the recovery sought to be made from the Petitioner has been limited to Rs.843/-. Since all the pending show cause notices had been dealt with and the retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner had not yet been released to him, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant Civil Writ Petition. During the pendency of the instant Writ Petition another charge sheet dated 12.03.2007 is stated to have been issued to the Petitioner. The validity of issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet is not the subject matter of challenge at the hands of the Petitioner. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to face the enquiry and that the respondents be required to finalize the enquiry proceedings at the earliest. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that if the Petitioner cooperates with the respondents, the enquiry proceedings initiated against the Petitioner on the basis of charge dated 12.03.2007 shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Since we are satisfied that the retiral benefits withheld can legitimately be withheld from the Petitioner under the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, we consider it just and appropriate to accept the offer made by the respondents to as to direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry proceedings (if any) consequent upon the issuance of a charge sheet dated 12.03.2007 within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. If the Petitioner is exonerated there from and no punishment is inflicted upon him, the respondent shall calculate the retiral benefits due to the Petitioner and release the same to him within one month thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges.” Learned counsel for the petitioner CWP No.6926 of 2009 [3] has asserted that admittedly, all the departmental proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was exonerated on 23.9.2008. In terms of Order dated 26.11.2007, extracted above, the respondents were required to calculate the retiral benefits due to the petitioner and release the same to him within one month thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the benefits have still not been released, however, some payment has been made. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. Yashpal Khanna, Senior Assistant, Office of Director, Food & Supplies Department, Punjab, has not been able to dispute the fact that retiral benefits were not released in terms of directions issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19949 of 2006 titled `Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’, decided on 26.11.2007. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondents shall pay interest @ 8% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed payment of retiral benefits with effect from 23.10.2008 till the date of payment. Payment be made within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order CWP No.6926 of 2009 [4] or else interest would be chargeable on the entire delayed payment @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (AJAI LAMBA) August 11, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?