IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.13101 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 22.5.2009 Rawail Singh ..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents CORUM HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab PERMOD KOHLI,J. (ORAL) The petitioner retired on 30.4.2004. The death-cum retirement gratuity amount of Rs.2,19,384/- was sanctioned vide order dated 19.11.2004. On account of non-payment of gratuity, the petitioner filed CWP No.2664 of 2005. This petition came to be disposed of on the basis of statement of the learned counsel for the respondents vide order dated 8.11.2005. A direction was issued to take a conscious and cautious decision accordingly within a period of three months and the relief, if any, grantable to the petitioner, be granted to him within one month thereafter. Despite passing of this order, admissible retrial benefits were not paid. The petitioner was forced to file a contempt petition. It appears that on being put to notice in the contempt, the Secretary, Department of School Education passed an order dated 12.6.2006 asking the DPI (S.E.), Punjab to ensure payment of retrial benefits, including the gratuity within 30 days. It is further stated in this order that if the Punjab and Haryana High Court CWP NO.13101 of 2007 :2: awards the interest, the same should be recovered from the salary of those who caused unwarranted delay. Even after the aforesaid order, the gratuity amount was not released. It is, however, admitted position that the petitioner retired on 30.4.2004 and he submitted the pension paper on 21.5.2004. The GPF amount was released on 2.9.2004 and leave encashment was paid on 4.11.2004. There does not seem to be any considerable delay in release of the amount of these retiral claims, hence no interest is admissible or payable on this count. However, it appears that death-cum-retirement gratuity was sanctioned on 19.11.2004, but the amount was not released, despite sanction by the Accountant General's office. The petitioner thereafter claimed revision of the gratuity and the revision was also allowed on 12.6.2006. Even then the revised amount of gratuity of Rs.2,55,948 was not paid. Mr.Chahal learned counsel appearing for respondents has vehemently argued that since there was delay on the part of the petitioner, to submit the pension papers, the respondents are not liable for payment of interest. However, from the detailed facts noticed here-in-above, it is apparent that there has been considerable delay on the part of the respondents. In the given circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on amount of Rs.2,55,948/- from 13.6.2006 till the amount is actually paid. The entire component of interest payable to be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received upon the competent authority. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.5.2009 MFK