IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6665 of 2008. Decided on: 10 th November, 2010. S.S. Thakur. …Petitioner. -Versus- Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and Others. .…Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ __ For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner was entitled to increment with effect from January, 1986. However, the same has been released to him on 30th June, 2001. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his claim only to interest on the delayed payment. 2. The salary is a property within the meaning of Article 301-A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was entitled to increment from the due date and he has been deprived of the same in a wrongful manner. The action of the respondents to deny the increment to the petitioner from January, 1986 till 30th June, 2001 is unjustifiable. He is required to be compensated for delay on the part of the respondent-University in releasing the increment from the due date by paying him reasonable interest. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 3. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment w.e.f. January, 1986. The needful shall be done within a period two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 10, 2010. (bhupender)