IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 324 of 2010 Decided on: 3rd November, 2011. Madan Lal Rattan …Appellant Versus State of H.P. and anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed with a prayer for grant of interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits, which was due to be paid from July 1977. It is seen that the petitioner had filed several applications on earlier occasions also before the erstwhile Tribunal and one such application is O.A. No. 1561 of 1995. One of the prayers in the O.A. is for grant of interest on retiral benefits. That O.A. was decided on 29.4.1997 by the Tribunal with a direction to count the service served by the petitioner in the employment of defunct District Board for the purpose of pension. In the meanwhile, it is seen that the petitioner has submitted an application on 18.6.1997 that prior to fixation of his pension, he should also be granted lecturer scale since he has done his M.A. in the year 1971 during the service and his pension be re-fixed 2 thereafter. The time taken for processing that application seems to the cause of delay in settling the pension. Be that as it may. It is seen from the proceedings that the pension was re-fixed and the benefits have been disbursed to the petitioner in June 1999. The issue of grant of lecturer scale was not the subject matter of any litigation, it appears. Be that as it may. Once the petitioner having made prayer for relief of interest and the competent forum having not granted the same, the petitioner should not have filed the subsequent application before the Tribunal for the very same relief of interest. It is clearly hit by the principle of res judicata. 2. Properly advised, the petitioner should have only pursued the grievances of the short delay during the interregnum between the date of decision in O.A. No. 1561 of 1995, namely, 29.4.1997 and the reasonable time thereafter during the award of retiral benefits at the revised scale in case the petitioner was of the view that he had not contributed to the said delay. That delay is only after the decision in O.A. No. 1561 of 1997 and the actual disbursement. 3. Learned Single Judge however has dismissed the writ petition holding that the relief granted by the Tribunal after the lapse of sixteen years of retirement would itself have been a proper relief to the petitioner. Without going to the question as to whether the subsequent writ petition was maintainable or not, the writ petition was dismissed holding that the claim for interest was unjustified. Although for different reasons also, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3 There is no merit in the appeal as well and it is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 3rd November, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr/pankaj) Judge.