IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 15371 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.3.2011. Ram Prashad …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent No.4.: Mr. Ajit Saklani, Central Govt. Counsel. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition the petitioner claims interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner retired from service on 30th September, 2003. The retiral benefits were not paid to him on the ground that some inquiry was pending against him. In the year 2004 the petitioner filed OA(M) – 288/2004 before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal claiming that he be paid his entire retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of his retirement till payment of the said amount. 2 The learned Tribunal found that the department had been remiss inasmuch as the inquiry had not been completed quickly and therefore, directed that a sum of Rs.1,95,195/- out of the DCRG be released to the applicant within four weeks on his furnishing security bonds. The respondent- State was also directed to complete the departmental inquiry within six months. This order was passed in the year 2006. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was completed and the petitioner was exonerated. Now the petitioner claims that he is entitled to interest on the withheld amount of retiral benefits in view of Rule 68 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. This Court in CWP No.3060 of 2010 titled as Basanti Devi vs. State of Himahcal Pradesh and others decided on 3.3.2011 has clearly held that a person who is exonerated or acquitted, then in terms of Rule 68(1) interest has to be paid at the rate as may be prescribed in the instructions from time to time. 3. However, the facts of this case are slightly different. The petitioner during the pendency of the departmental proceedings approached the Tribunal and prayed that the DCRG be paid to him alongwith interest. The Tribunal, as mentioned above, directed that a sum of Rs.1,95,195/- be released to the petitioner. This order had been passed on the asking of the petitioner and while passing this order 3 neither any interest was awarded to the petitioner nor was liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a petition again for his claim for interest. Therefore, the only presumption which can be drawn is that his claim for interest was denied. 4. Shri Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the cause of action to claim interest arose only after completion of the inquiry. The petitioner, in my view, cannot be permitted to take the stand since he had in the earlier petition specifically claimed interest @ 12%. Once a party in judicial proceedings claims relief and the relief is not granted to the party the only inference is that the Court has rejected its prayer for grant of such relief. Such denial of relief cannot be set-aside in collateral proceedings and should have been challenged by way of filing a writ or an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,95,195/-, which was released even prior to the completion of the inquiry and would otherwise have been released only after the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry. If, however, the petitioner has been paid any other amount by way of retiral benefits including leave encashment, other than this amount of Rs.1,95,195/-, he shall be entitled to the interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 4 1.1.2004 and the State is directed to pay this interest latest by 31st July, 2011. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 30th March, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.