- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
(2.) The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2001. On the representation dated 17.9.2001 for the release of the retiral benefits, when no action was taken by the respondents, he served a legal notice dated 30.12.2001. Since the respondents did not release the retiral benefits, the petitioner was constrained to file Civil Writ Petition No. 16820 of 2003. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation/legal notice submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of four months. After considerable delay on 11.3.2004, respondent No. 1 passed orders for release of the pension. The petitioner received a bank draft in the sum of Rs. 4,09,589/- on 25.3.2004. Still, a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- was withheld by the respondents. The petitioner made a representation for the release of the remaining amount. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release the amount illegally with-held together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the delayed payment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have released a sum of Rs. 1,39,384/-. A sum of Rs. 17,248/- is still unpaid by the respondents.
(3.) On notice of motion being issued, the respondents have filed separate written-statements. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have stated that the liability for payment of the retiral benefits is with respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation. This fact is not denied by respondent No. 3 in its written statement. The only plea taken by the respondents for delay in the release of the retiral benefits is that the petitioner did not submit the completed pension papers till 10.7.2002.;