IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5690/2008 (OA 170/99) Date of Decision : May 15, 2010 Dr. Vijender Singh Tariyal Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Sh. Virender Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to release the proficiency step up increments in favour of the applicant immediately and fix his pay accordingly. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of salary accrued thereupon alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. In reply the respondents have stated that the benefits could not be accorded to the petitioner due to pendency of the criminal case. However, after the acquittal/discharge of the petitioner from the said case on 4.1.1997, steps were taken and in terms of letter dated 5.6.2000 a direction was issued for release of the monetary benefits to the petitioner. Supplementary affidavit filed by the State evidences the fact that a sum of Rs. 21,925/- stood paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition. 3. The dispute thus is narrowed down to the question of payment of interest on the amount which was not paid within a reasonable period of time. 4. Undoubtedly petitioner became entitled to the release of monetary benefits w.e.f. 4.1.1997. The fact that the petitioner stood acquitted of the charges was made known to the State in terms of his letter dated 28.5.1997 (Annexure A-7). The respondents ought to have acted on the same and taken steps for release of monetary benefits within a reasonable period of time. The State may have contemplated filing an appeal against the order of discharge. I am inclined to give this benefit to the State. But still one year’s period would be a reasonable time within which the benefits ought to have been released. Thus petitioner ought to have been paid monetary benefits latest by 31.5.1998. Since the same was not done petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount already released to him. The Apex Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra versus State of U. P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 3513 (2) in similar circumstances 3 also directed payment of interest, though @ 18%. In the facts of the instant case the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.6.1998 up to the date of actual payment made to the petitioner. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petition sands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 15, 2010 (PK)