LPA No. 515 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.515 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 4 .4.2011 Dr.Amarnath Saxena ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents have conceded before the learned Single Judge that the appellant was subjected to departmental enquiry which has culminated into his exoneration and the proceedings had attained finality. The enquiry report was placed on record. After obtaining instructions from the department, it was stated that all pensionary benefits would be sanctioned and paid to the appellant within a period of three months. In the present appeal, the appellant had only made a claim for interest because the learned Single Judge has relegated him to the alternative remedy for his claim for interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant stood retired from service on 31.7.2007 and there was more than three years delay. On LPA No. 515 of 2011 (O&M) 2 account of the fact that there was disputed question of facts, the learned Single Judge has adopted the aforesaid course. 3. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the course adopted by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appellant was subjected to departmental enquiry which culminated in his exoneration and if on that account there is a delay in making payment of retiral benefits then it has to be ascertained who was at fault in delaying the disciplinary proceedings. It is not possible to undertake such an exercise in writ jurisdiction much less in Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant may avail any other alternative remedy in accordance with law for claiming interest on delayed payment. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 4. 4.2011 Judge okg