- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on belated release of the retirement benefits. The petitioner contended that he retired as a Marketing Inspector on 30th June 2004 and his post retirement benefits were not released. The petitioner accordingly filed Writ Petition No. 54996 of 2008 which was disposed of by order dated 3rd November 2008 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation.
(2.) It transpires that the department did not release the post retirement dues on the ground that the petitioner had caused a loss of Rs. 5,10,604/- and that such amount was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. Even though the petitioner disputed this amount, the petitioner, in order to avoid any controversy, requested the department to recover the amount of the alleged loss from the post retirement dues and release the balance amount. Inspite of this specific request being made, the respondent did not release the amount and when the petitioner filed contempt proceedings, the respondents released an amount of Rs. 9593 by cheque dated 10th September 2009, Rs. 4,93,723/- by cheque dated 10th September 2009 and another sum of Rs. 17,868/- by cheque dated 10th September 2009. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition praying that on account of belated payments being made, the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.) In S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another,2008 1 ESC 89, the said employees retired from service and filed writ petition claiming interest for 4 years on the amount on retirement benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, against which Special Leave Petition was filed, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition setting aside the judgment of the High Court holding that the appellant was entitled to the retirement benefits in accordance with law and was also entitled for interest on such amount. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, retirement benefits was required to be paid and the same was not released upon the retirement of the petitioner. The respondents were aware that the petitioner would retire on a particular date and was required to process the retirement dues on or before the date of retirement to enable the petitioner to get the post retirement dues. This Court also finds that the petitioner had made a request that the loss suffered by the department may also be adjusted and the balance amount may be released thereafter. Even though a specific request was made the same remained un-addressed and no effort was made by the department to release the balance amount and the same was released only when the contempt proceedings were drawn against the respondents. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the respondents in not releasing the amount within a reasonable period. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay interest on belated payments at the rate of 6% per annum within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;