- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3621/2006 (Nand Lal Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan) DATE OF ORDER : 9/7/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.V.N.Kalla, for the petitioner. Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, Dy. Government Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case petitioner is claiming interest of Rs.51956/- while calculating the same @ 18% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. Admittedly, there was no rule in existence for granting any interest upon the delayed payment. Further, petitioner remained suspended for near about 6 years while he was facing charge under Section 376 IPC and after acquittal he was paid salary for the said period during which he did not work. Meaning thereby, petitioner was paid regular salary for the period during which he was under suspension, and did not work so also on the date of retirement which is 31/8/1999 there was no rule for granting interest upon delayed payment, therefore, I am no inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting interest as claimed by petitioner for delay in pension which is seriously disputed by the respondents with regard to liability of delay in payment without any specific allegation against any person. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgment reported in 2008 AIR SCW page 689 (S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) in which Hon'ble Apex Court granted interest in the event of non-payment of pensionary benefits for four years, but here in this case some amount was paid with delay of two months, some payment was made with delay of four months, arrear bills were paid with delay of seven months and pension and commutation was paid after 12 months. It is required to be observed that petitioner remained under suspension due to pendency of criminal case under Section 376 IPC in which he was ultimately exonerated but it is possible that at the time of finalising the retiral benefits some time can be consumed and for the same respondents cannot be held responsible to pay interest. In this view of the matter, the facts of the case cited by the petitioner are altogether different and do not apply upon the facts of present case, therefore, petitioner cannot be held eligible for any interest as claimed by him. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja