Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the Petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the J.S.E.B.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder has been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is decided finally. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2005 for a direction to the Respondents to disburse the post retiral benefits which was detailed in the writ petition. It was also asserted in the petition that a number of representations, vide Annexure 5 series were given, but the Respondents have turned deaf ear and the Petitioner is suffering on day -to -day basis during the pendency of the writ petition.
(3.) IT appears that the post retiral benefits have been paid as asserted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. The details are given showing the different amounts and the different cheque numbers visavis the dates on which the disbursement has been made for ready perusal. The assertion made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 6 is quoted below: 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he has been paid the post retiral benefits after a long delay, but he was entitled for interest on the said amount as also ruled by a Division Bench in the case of Bhagwat Narayan Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. [2007 (2) JLJR 127]. The contention of the learned Counsel appears to be justified. The Petitioner is entitled for the interest at the statutory rate as payable to the Government servant. Since the Petitioner had retired from a gazetted post as an Assistant Engineer, he is entitled for the amount of interest as well.;