IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5404 of 2008 K.K.Verma Vs. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others. Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was an employee of Punjab National Bank, has filed this writ petition to seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay his retiral benefits along with 18% interest from the date these have become due. On 17.4.1985, an order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed by the competent authority. The petitioner challenged this order by filing CWP No.2756 of 1986 on 29.5.1986. This court set-aside the dismissal order on 26.11.2007. The respondent-bank filed an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed on 31.1.2008. The High Court has also imposed a cost of `25,000/-. Against this order, the respondent-Bank preferred a Special Leave Petition, where the order passed by this court was stayed. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the Special Leave Petition has now been dismissed on 7.9.2010. Thus, the dismissal order of the petitioner has been set-aside now as no action is being taken to pass fresh order. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to release of his retiral benefits, for which this writ petition has been filed. Despite opportunities, no reply has been filed. The writ petition was adjourned sine-die to await the decision of the Hon'ble Civil Writ Petition No.5404 of 2008 : 2 : Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition. Since the claim only relates to release of retiral benefits, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to release all the retiral benefits of the petitioner, if otherwise due, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the retiral benefits are not released within this period, the petitioner would be entitled to get the same with interest @ 12% from the date these were due to the date of payment. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved against any order, he would be at liberty to have his appropriate remedy against the same. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. January 18, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE