IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 10, 2009 DR. DEV RAJ VIJ ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Dr. Dev Raj Vij, retired Principal, aged about 83 years, has been constrained to approach this Court in its civil writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as per letter dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure P-1) and to pay the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009 2 The facts are not in dispute in so much as it is admitted that in terms of provisions of instructions issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance (Finance, Pension Policy and Coordination Branch), dated 25.8.2005, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement, was required to be 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced with effect of 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner. Relevant contents of instructions dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “In continuation of Finance Department letter no.1/7/98-1FP3/8709 dated the 16th July 1998 and letter No.1/7/98-1FPIII/8825 dated the 21st July/18th August, 1998, on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to state that the Governor of Punjab is pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1-1-1996 pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1-1-1996 of the post last held by the pensioners. .....” The petitioner retired on 29.2.1984. It has been brought out in the petition that despite the aforesaid instructions and despite the fact that the Head of the Department had the responsibility to do the needful in accordance with the instructions, the needful was not done. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the arrears have been paid. A short affidavit has been filed by Smt.Maninder Dhillon, Director of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, wherein the ground taken for delay in release of arrears is that the service book of the petitioner could not be located in time. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009 3 the parties. The above extracted portion of the instructions makes it evident that the respondents were required to release the pension, which was not to be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay of the post last held by the petitioner. The petitioner, at the point in time when he retired, was a Principal. So far as the responsibility in this regard is concerned, para-6 of the letter (Annexure P-1) makes it evident that the Head of the Office/Department from which the employee retired, was the person to revise the pension. The Head of the Office/Department is required to send to the Accountant General, Punjab, a copy of the application of the pensioner along with relevant record, calculation sheet of pension/family pension, copy of the order of the pay scale admissible to the pensioner under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, for the post last held by the pensioner. It has been brought out that the petitioner was neither informed about the enhanced pension nor the same was released to him. The reason for delay, as indicated by the respondents, that the service book could not be traced and, therefore, the enhanced pension could not be released, is not acceptable as a valid reason. The petitioner is an aged person. The pension was revised, surely, keeping in view the price index and other attending factors. Delay from 25.8.2005 till 10.7.2009 is substantial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot take refuge under the Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009 4 excuse that the service book of the petitioner could not be located and, hence, the delay. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% from 1.11.2005 till 10.7.2009. The interest on the delayed payment of arrears be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. August 10, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?