'-A BEFORE THE STATE ADMINI_STRATIYE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR i'' //Z?2..L:'l:l?^ O.A. N0. OF 2002 r •: VINOD MASIH ASHER Son of Late Asher, aged about 60 years, H.No. 15/203, Dak Bungalow Ward, Dhamtari APPLICANT VERSUS ~TH£ S~T/^T& o-f1 r^i.P. ^ -T^-ycT^-^ 1. THE SECRETARY,' Finance Department, Govt. of M.P. Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) ^TA-re OiF ^"•HH/^TTlS^^'RM^TlTrw^ 2. THE SECRETARY, Finance Department, Govt. of C.G. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3 . THE DIRECTOR, Treasuries and Accounts, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. THE DIRECTOR, Treasuries, Accounts and Pensions, Raipur (C.G.) 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, District Treasury, Dhamtari (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS •it] APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT,' 1985 BEHCH : HON'BLB SHRI SATIi Present :- Shri P.P. Saliu, counselfortlie petitioner. Sliri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawycr for the State of Cbliattisgarh. (Fassed oa 28th July, 2006) The petitioner was worldng as Treasuiy Offlcer, DepartlueQt of Fiaance, GoveiTiinent of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner retired voluntarily on 31-7-2000. (2) According to the petitioner, he was entifled to grant of pension witbin a period of six nioufhs, biit fhe respondent autliorities have delayed in inaking pa^iu.ent of pension. The fc-st rettral benefit i.e. Faiailv Bene&t Fuud and Group Insurance. F~und was paid to hini on 12-11-2001. The other pensionaiy benefits were paid ou 4-3-2004 &, 22-7-2004. The petitioner in. tbis petition is daiTning iuterest on fhe delayed payment ofretiral benefits. (3) Learaed couiisel appearing for tlie State submits that there was a departniental enquuy, which was concluded though wifhia three inonths but the. petitioner is not entitled to aay interest on. fhe delayed paym.ent of retiral benefits because of departinental enquhy. BIi' ff (4) Havuig heard leanied counsel for the parties and penised tiie records, it is evident that tlie depaitmeD.tal enquin,- was pending for fhree niontlis only and fhe respondent has delayed payiaeat of retiral benefits for about foui' years. The petitioner is entitled to hitere.st on the delayed pa^Tuent of retiral dues. The Suprenie Court ia the case of Vijay L. reUed on by learaed couasel appearuig for tiie petitioaer, held fhat "in case of an employee retiring after having reridered seivice, it is expected that aIJ the payment ofihe retiraJ benefits should be paid on Ihe date of retireinenf or soon thereafier iffor some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be macte on. the date of reiireinent." The Supreine Court for delayed paynient directed interest at the rate of 18 per cent wifti effect fi-oin tlie date of retireinent. In ftie present case on hand though special circunistances of pendency of departmental enquiiy exists, but that has aot taken more fhan three inonfhs. It is, therefore, desirable ia fhe iaterest of justice that fhe petitioner be paid iaterest at ttie rate of 6 per cent froiB. the date of retirem.ent tiU date of paym.ent of retiral beuefits, keeping iu view of the Banls iiitercst prevalent at that point of tune. The iiiterest is payable wifhin a period of three inontlis from fhe date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (5) The petition is accordiagly aUowed to the above extent. No oixler as to costs, GOWRI