IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6673 of 2008. Decided on: September 9, 2010. Subhash Tej Pal …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Though the petitioner approached this Court with several grievances, the surviving grievance is only with regard to the interest on the delayed payment. According to the petitioner, more than the monetary claim, it is a question of his self-respect as well. It is not in dispute that there was an overcharging on the petitioner for over a period of 8 years. True, the amount comes to only Rs. 3400/-, but it is seen from the pleadings and not in serious dispute as well, the petitioner has been bringing this matter to the notice of the authorities concerned. But, this money was tendered to the petitioner only when he approached the erstwhile Tribunal and that too when the matter was pending for quite some time before the erstwhile Tribunal. Finally, only in the year 2006, the money without any interest was tendered to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner because of his righteous indignation, he refused. But the petitioner could have refused it in protest as well since the matter was pending before the erstwhile Tribunal. Be that as it may. Since, there is no dispute as to the over-charging to the tune of Rs. 3400/- 2 and since it is for over a period from 1994 to 1999, and though it was admitted in the year, 2000, yet it took 6 years to repay the same. It is only appropriate that the petitioner is paid his legitimate interest for that amount. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to re-pay the overcharged allowance on the petitioner with interest @ 7% from the respective dates of overcharging, till the amount was actually tendered to the petitioner in the year 2006. The needful as above, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment and if the amount is not paid, the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the aforesaid payment. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 9, 2010. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma ) (karan) Judge.