Lokeshwar Prasad - (1.) The petitioner, an ex-officer of the Indian Army, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the payer that a mandamus/ direction/order be issued directing the respondents to pay damages/interest on delayed payment of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, an officer in the Indian Army, retired on 28th February, 1989. The retiral benefits, to which the petitioner was entitled, as per the rules, were released to him excepting that the amount of commuted pension, amounting to Rs. 1,54,489.00 and the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 75,000.00 were not released and the same were released to him after protracted correspondence on 1st August, 1990. The petitioner has prayed that on the above amount of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 2,25,489.00, damages/ interest @ 15 per cent per annum be paid to him by the Respondents for the period of delay i.e. from 1st March, 1989 to 31st July,1990.
(2.) On the other hand the case of the respondents to whom a notice of the petition was given, in brief, is that as the PPOs were sent to the petitioner in January, 1989 and the death-cum-retirement gratuity was also notified in time, the petitioner is not entitled to any damages/interest and the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of commuted pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, amounting to Rs. 2,29,489.00, which was payable to the petitioner on 1st March, 1989 i.e. soon after his retirement, was not paid to him till 31st July, 1990 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to interest as claimed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1985SC 356 and AIR 1988 SC 1407.;