IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A No. 1565 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 23.4.2009. State of Haryana & Ors .... Petitioner. Versus R.S.Rathore (Raghunath Singh Rathore) .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). The present second appeal by defendant arises out of a judgment and decree passed by Court below arising out of the suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff has filed a present suit on the ground that his retiral benefits has not been released though he had attained age of superannuation on 29.2.2004. It was a stand of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff was involved in a criminal case and remained under suspension from 8.8.2003 to 24.4.2004. On account of pendency of the criminal case, the provisional pension was given to the plaintiff. Vide order dated 22.12.2006, the suspension period has been treated as duty period. The arrears have been paid to the plaintiff. It is, thus, sought to be pointed out that there is no delay in making payment of the retiral benefits. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit and found that plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 9% on delayed payment of leave encashment of Rs.1, 65, 830/- as well as interest @9% on the payment of gratuity from R.S.A No. 1565 of 2009 -2- the date of his retirement till the date of payment. The appeal was dismissed with modification that the interest will be payable after two months from the date of superannuation of the plaintiff. The sole argument in the present second appeal is that the interest could not be awarded to the plaintiff as retiral benefits could not be paid to him on account of involvement in a criminal case. In any case, alternatively, the interest can be said to be payable only after the two months of the conclusion of the criminal trial. Though the jurisdiction of civil Court is limited to grant the interest @6% in terms of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code in suit for declaration, where there is no contractual rate of interest, but since the period for which the interest has been awarded and the amount involved, I do not find, it is a fit case for modifying any part of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. Dismissed. April 23, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge