CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18017 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18017 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 Manjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to pay 12% interest on account of delayed payment to him. As per the petitioner payment was due w.e.f. 11.12.1981. The prayer is made in the factual background that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector Cooperative Societies Punjab in 1961. He was not given seniority as per the merit by the SSS Board. He had filed C.W.P. No.9978 of 1988. A similar writ petition bearing No.901 of 1987 had also been filed by one Raghbir CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18017 of 2008 -2- Singh Malik, which was allowed holding that the seniority should be determined on the basis of recommendations of SSS Board. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was also allowed in the same terms on 18.8.2005. The consequential benefits were not released to the petitioner, for which he had filed COCP No.582 of 2006. The arrears of pay, gratuity and leave encashment etc. were accordingly released. The petitioner, thereafter, served a legal notice for grant of interest on account of delay in promotion due to him from 11.12.1981 and the interest was sought till the payment of arrears on account of notional promotion. Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed. While hearing the case on 7.1.2010, this Court observed that it is an admitted position that in earlier petition filed by the petitioner, no interest was granted to the petitioner. The question requiring consideration, thus, is to see if the second writ petition would be maintainable for claiming interest. Since the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears is depended upon the relief claimed in the earlier writ petition, there was no culpable neglect seen on the part of the respondents to release any benefit, which may be due to the petitioner or became due to him on account of any subsequent order passed by this Court. Since this claim has not been made in the earlier writ petition, it would not be appropriate to allow the interest w.e.f. 11.12.1981 as claimed in the present writ petition. This writ petition has also been filed after delay of more than 3 years, whereas the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 18.8.2005. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18017 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) RSJ 75, to say that issue of delay and latches relating to interest or retiral benefits, should not be dismissed in limine. This observation made in S.K. Dua's case (supra) would not have applicability in the facts of the present case as there was no culpable delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner, but right of the petitioner for ante dated promotion was decided subsequently by this Court. The delay, if any, could not be termed as culpable in the facts and circumstances of this case. No merit. Dismissed. September 7, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE