CWP No.1981 of 1995 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1981 of 1995 Date of decision: 01.07.2010 Ajaib Singh Dhillon .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab Government, Chandigarh and others. .. respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed for grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is not disputed that after retirement the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits which were not released and consequently he filed CWP No.1609 of 1992. In that writ petition, initially a stand was taken by the respondents that the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet and that was the reason why his retiral benefits were delayed. However, it is not disputed that ultimately the charges against the petitioner were dropped and the retiral benefits were released. It was thereafter that the present petition has been filed for award of interest. The charges against the petitioner having been droped, there is no escape from the conclusion that the money belonging to the petitioner was wrongly retained by the respondents. It also cannot be denied that the petitioner had to run pillar to post including having to file CWP No.1981 of 1995 ::2:: this writ petition in an old age for the redressal of his just grievances. In the petition, the petitioner has claimed total interest of Rs.73,277/- under various heads. Concededly, this interest had been worked out at the rate of 20% p.a.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that Courts normally grant 9% interest on delayed payments. Learned DAG, Punjab has pointed out that even though he cannot dispute this fact, yet it cannot also be denied that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting his pension papers. Without getting into a complicated accounting procedure, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if a consolidated amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner on account of the interest as well as costs. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 2 months failing which this amount would also carry further interest @ 9% p.m. from today. (AJAY TEWARI) July 01, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet