IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.14181 of 2008 Date of decision : May 20, 2011 Smt. Asha Devi …Petitioner. Versus M.C. Shimla and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocte,for respondent No.1. M/s Ramesh Thakur & R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner’s husband was employed as daily- waged Beldar, with respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Having remained daily-waged for a very long period, his services were regularized about ten months before his death. He died on 7th May, 1997. Respondent- Municipal Corporation was having some doubt, whether any pensionary/terminal benefits were available to the family of the deceased, on account of his having been a regular employee for a period of less than one year. A reference was made to the Government. It was only after Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the filing of the present case, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2006, that the Government responded to the respondent-Municipal Corporation’s query, whether any terminal benefits were available to the family of the deceased or not and then the Pension Payment Order was issued and the arrears of pension, the remaining portion of ex-gratia grant and the amount of gratuity were released in favour of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased Beldar. Now, petitioner’s claim is only with respect to the interest on delayed payment of arrears of pension, remaining portion of ex-gratia grant and the amount of gratuity. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been awarding interest at the rate of 12% to 18%, in case of delayed payments of pension, gratuity etc. He has placed reliance upon Vijay L. Mehrotra versus State of U.P. and others, (2001) 9 SCC 687, and O.P. Gupta versus Union of India and others, 1987(5) SLR 288. 4. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, delay in release of payment had not been satisfactorily explained. In the present case, respondent-Municipal Corporation, has given satisfactory explanation, for delayed payment. However, on account of delay in payment of arrears of pension, remaining portion of ex-gratia grant and the amount of gratuity, …3… petitioner has been put to loss, on account of inflation, and the respondents have gained, because the money remained with them. Consequently, it is ordered that interest at the rate of 8%, per annum, which is equivalent to the rate of interest payable on GPF accumulations, shall be paid by respondent No.1, on the delayed payment of pension amount, from the date when the pension was due to the date of payment of pension, i.e. 16th February, 2008. Similarly, interest at the rate of 8% shall be paid on remaining portion of ex-gratia grant, which is `20,000/-, from the date of the death of husband of the petitioner to 9th April, 2007, and on the amount of gratuity, which is `5,660/-, interest, at the rate of 8%, shall be paid from a date six months after the death of the husband of the petitioner to the payment of the aforesaid amount, i.e. 23rd July, 2007. Amount of interest shall be worked out and paid to the petitioner within three months. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 20, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J