IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1185 of 2009. Date of decision: 15.7.2009. Dina Nath Sharma … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Himat Negi vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner retired as Principal from Government Senior Secondary School, Darini, on 30.4.2003. According to him, his case for grant of pension alongwith service book, etc. were submitted to the office of the Accountant General by the Deputy Director of Education, Dharamshala but inadvertently pay of the petitioner was fixed at lower scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and recovery amounting to Rs.35,600/- was ordered to be made from the petitioner vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 6.5.2003. As such, a sum of Rs.35,600/- was deducted out of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) payable to him. The petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education and the matter was taken up with the office of the Accountant General and vide letter dated 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 12.1.2004 it was stated that the case of the petitioner has been finalized and the objections raised in the PPO were dropped. Resultantly, the deducted amount of Rs.35,600/-, was to be paid to the petitioner. This has not been paid till date. It would be pertinent to mention that according to the Accountant General this deduction was ordered due to some entries not being made in the Service Book of the petitioner. It is apparent that the deduction was ordered because of an error in the service book. We could have understood if after the error had been pointed out, the State had taken remedial steps immediately to pay the deducted amount to the petitioner but despite the fact that in January, 2004 the office of the Accountant General had clearly dropped the earlier objections the amount of Rs.35,600/- has still not been paid to the petitioner. He made repeated representations and in fact sent a legal notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 6th May, 2008 but despite this the respondents slept over the matter. It was only after we took cognizance of the matter and directed the Director of Higher Education to file his personal affidavit that this amount of Rs.35,600/- has been released in favour of the petitioner and sent to him on 18th June, 2009. From the perusal of the aforesaid facts, we find that there was no fault of the petitioner which led to the deduction being made. For the first period of about eight months, till January, 2004 the deduction was made because some entry was missing from his service book. From January, 2004 after this mistake was pointed out there is no plausible explanation why the amount was not paid. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be denied the interest 3 for the period the amount legally due and payable was withheld from him. Normally, DCRG is required to be paid within 60 days of the retirement. We feel that this is a reasonable time to calculate the dues of a retired employee. Since the petitioner retired on 30.4.2003, we feel that he is entitled to simple interest from 1st July, 2003 till 18th June, 2009 @ 9% per annum. The amount due as interest be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today. We are also of the view that the State which is being burdened with this interest is entitled to recover the interest, especially the interest payable after 12th January, 2004 from the erring official(s) due to whose negligence the State is being burdened to pay this amount. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 15th July, 2009 (Surinder Singh), J. ™