IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2234 of 2011 Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Dr.Hari Ram Mittal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the remedy of writ petition, which the petitioner has chosen, is not an appropriate one to answer his grievance for the simple reason that in the eventuality of the same being considered, it is likely to throw up some disputed facts which cannot be answered in the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has disputed that the liability which was fastened upon him to deny him the legitimate pension within time is erroneous and, therefore, he is liable to interest on the delayed payment. The petitioner has ostensibly tried to show that the respondents are liable to pay interest on the delayed payments of his retiral benefits and the amount withheld as penal interest. Since these pleas are likely to create a conflict of facts, the C.W.P.No.2234 of 2011 -2- appropriate remedy would be that of filing a civil suit and not the instant petition. Disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. 7.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss