IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T).No.744 of 2008. Reserved on 14-7-2009 Date of Decision:17-7-2009 _______________________________________________ Sh.Charan Dass. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J The petitioner retired as Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) from Bhawarna Block on 30.6.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was entitled to receive his gratuity and other retiral benefits which was not paid to him. Thus by means of this petition, he sought the release of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and also Group Insurance Scheme Funds (GIC) with interest @ 18% per annum. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 The petitioner worked as Block Development Officer (BDO) in Panchrukhi, Bhawarna and Gagret Blocks and ultimately retired from Bhawarna Block on 30.6.2003 but his aforesaid retiral benefits were not released to him on the pretext that some audit paras pertaining to the period when he remained posted as Block Development Officer, Panchrukhi was not settled. He met the Secretary, Rural Development and made a representation to him that he was responsible for the objections raised by the audit but no action was taken and his DCRG and GIS both were not released. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 888 of 2008 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. But the Tribunal was abolished and the cases were transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, the matter was taken up by this Court. The respondents did not file the reply before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 22.5.2009 this Court noticed that despite having been granted reasonable time on 11.4.2008 by the Tribunal, the respondents did not file the reply thus took a serious note and the respondents were directed to ensure that either the retiral benefits be paid to the petitioner or the reply be filed before the next date i.e. 13th July, 2009. In case of making default therein, the Principal Secretary (Rural Development) to the Government of H.P. was ordered to be presented in the court on the date aforesaid. 3 The respondents filed the short reply on 10.7.2009 in the Registry of this Court and stated that the aforesaid amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) along with Group Insurance (GIS) Funds amounting to Rs.2,89,509/- were released to the petitioner vide office order No.RDD-AA(B)(3)18/94 dated 23.6.2009. The copies of the office orders dated 23.6.209 and 30.6.2009 respectively were also annexed. Now the question before us is to whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payments to him, as claimed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have pondered upon the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner was not released the DCRG and GIS funds on his retirement, despite his representation made to the quarter concerned, merely on a flimsy ground that some audit paras of his time when he was posted Block Development Officer, Panchrukhi w.e.f. April, 1997 to March, 2002 remained unsettled. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was at any point of time informed about the alleged audit paras during his service or in any case the respondents ever pointed out to him even on his retirement or immediately thereafter. The respondents despite the reasonable and sufficient opportunity to file the reply also did not whisper even a single word as to why they failed to release the aforesaid retiral benefits to the petitioner within stipulated time without any notice to the petitioner and 4 took about six years for its release that too on the intervention of this Court. In fact, the case of delayed payment of gratuity and GIS should have been considered and decided by the Administrative Secretary of the concerned department at least when it was brought to his notice. In our opinion, there was inaction on the part of the respondents and unreasonable delay in making the payment of the aforesaid retiral benefits to the petitioner which is solely attributable to the Administrative lapses of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are held liable to pay the petitioner a simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of DCRG and GIS w.e.f. 31.7.2003 giving leverage of two months to have completed the administrative formalities, till the amount is released on 23.6.2009. The respondents shall calculate the interest on the total amount of DCRG and GIS and positively make its payment to the petitioner within two months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 17th , 2009(R) 5