- (1.) This is an application for condonation of 157 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 157 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1609 of 2006
(2.) I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants and Mr. Surmukh Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) The only contention raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General is that interest awarded at the rate of 18% per annum by the lower Appellate Court is on the higher side. He, however, concedes that the State Government had not filed any appeal against the award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the trial Court. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents states that this is a case where admittedly the delay has occurred in releasing complete retiral benefits to the respondent. He states that this is a second suit filed by him. He earlier filed a suit where he had prayed for a direction to be issued to the appellants to complete his service book. In appeal the suit was decreed and a direction was issued to the appellants to complete the service book. Thereafter, he was compelled to file a second suit to get his complete retiral benefits. He further submits that there is absolutely no explanation or reason given by the State for the delay in payment of his retiral benefits. He also relies upon a judgment in Punjab State and Ors. v. Shaminder Singh 2006(1) PLR 499 where this Court relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000(2) R.S.J. 647 has upheld grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum under these circumstances. The relevant observations of this Court in Shaminder Singh's case (supra) are as hereunder: 2. The only argument raised by learned State counsel that the interest awarded is on the higher side especially when the plaintiff-respondent is negligent in submitting his pension papers. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra's case (supra) has been rightly followed and no exception is provided for this Court to interfere in the discretion exercised in awarding the interest in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No question of law warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code has been raised. The appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.;