IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15116 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.K. APPUKUTTAN, S/O. LATE KORANDA, RESIDING IN "SERLINA", P.O. THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM-2, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE OF THE A.G. (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 15116 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking interest on retirement benefits paid to him belatedly. Petitioner retired from service on 31.05.98. Major part of his retirement benefits were disbursed only on 27.07.02. According to the petitioner even going by the orders of the Government themselves for such delay interest is payable. Petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% to the petitioner for the delay in disbursing DCRG, Commutation of pension and arrears of pension;” 2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that this Court has in Vijay v. State Bank of Travancore [2005(1) KLT 953] held that for the sole relief of interest for alleged delayed payment, petition under Article 226 would not be entertained. According to the learned Government Pleader, that judgment has been rendered relying on two Supreme Court judgments. The learned Government Pleader also points out that after 21.10.02 when he received major WPC : 15116/08 -:2:- part of his retirement benefits he did not raise any claim for interest until filing this writ petition. Therefore he is guilty of delay and laches also. 3. In answer to the contention raised by the Government Pleader the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my attention a decision of the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another [2008(3) SCC 44] wherein the Supreme Court disapproved of the High court decision in a writ petition claiming interest, relegating the party to a civil suit and held that the High Court ought to have admitted the petition by issuing rule nisi and decided the matter on merits. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, that judgment is applicable to the facts of this case. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that, the petitioner should be denied the relief primarily on the ground of delay and laches in so far as for four long years he did not raise any claim for interest. Further in the Supreme Court decision it does not specifically say that for interest simpliciter, a writ petition would lie. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not WPC : 15116/08 -:3:- inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb