CWP(T) No. 16139/2008 21.07.2010 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Rawat, Advocate, for the respondents Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the judgment dated 30.5.1985. 2. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “A) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay interest on the amounts of Rs.31,875/- (balance of pay of suspension period from 1975 to 1979), Rs.49,000/- (balance of pension amount) and Rs.15,.000/- (gratuity) which were paid to the applicant either in May, 2006 and in June, 2006 without interest, at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the same become due till its payment. B) That the respondents may be directed to pay the bonus for four years i.e. 1975 to 1979 and also to pay the uniform allowance to the applicant for the aforesaid period that too with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. C) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record qua the applicant and after perusing the same the respondents may be commanded with an appropriate order to make the payment of interest as claimed by the applicant.” 3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which were assailed by him before the Senior Sub Judge, Mandi by way of Civil Suit No. 239 of 1980. In the said suit the following issues were famed: 1. Whether the suit needs to be dismissed as no further relief has been claimed as alleged in 2 of the preliminary objection? ………OPD 2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? ….OPD 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged? ….OPD 4. Whether the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of law and rules as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? ….OPP 5. If issue No.4 is proved, whether the order of stoppage of increment, suspension etc. is liable to be quashed? …..OPP 6. Relief. 4. The Civil Court decreed the petitioner’s suit by holding that the enquiry initiated against him was in violation of principles of natural justice and in contravention of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and thus the orders putting the petitioner on suspension were illegal. The operative portion of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 239 of 1980, reads as under; “14. In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 5, being in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for declaration to the effect that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 20 and 311 of the Constitution and the order passed by General Manager, HRTC, Shimla on 7th/16th August, 1979 is null and void and inoperative against the plaintiff and he is entitled to all the pay and allowances for the suspension period including his annual increments from the date on which he earned them, with all service benefits. The suit is accordingly decreed along with costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The enquiry file of the plaintiff retained in this office be sent back to the Deptt. concerned and the file of this Court be consigned to the R. Room.” 5. There is no dispute that respondent-HRTC assailed the same by filing an appeal before the District Judge which subsequently stood transferred to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. The appeal which was re-numbered as OA was dismissed by the Tribunal in terms of order dated 4.6.1998. The respondent- HRTC assailed the same before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 825/1998 which also stood dismissed by this Court in terms of order dated 18.3.2005. There is no dispute that the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1985 has attained finality. 6. Since the action initiated by the respondents was held to be illegal, petitioner is obviously entitled to interest on the delayed payments made to him. Petitioner who retired in the year 1998 received his dues only in the year 2006. It is not in dispute that the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court had not been stayed by any Court. Petitioner’s right to receive the dues had fructified long ago. Thus there was no legal impediment in the respondents paying the dues of the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner is entitled interest @9% on the delayed payment from the date on which the payments were due to him. 7. With regard to the prayers (B) & (C), the respondents have not stated anything in their reply. Mr. H. S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents however orally states that all dues stand paid to the petitioner. There is no proof of the same. Under the circumstances, a direction is issued to the respondents that if not already paid, bonus for the period of 4 fours i.e. 1975 to 1979 and uniform allowance be paid to the petitioner. 8. Needful be positively done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 21, 2010 (rana)