- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, at the out set submits, that in para 11 of the counter affidavit dated 3.8.2009, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner was paid all his retiral dues and that interest as directed by Court's order dated 3.4.2003, has been directed to be paid and that the Secretary of the Department has sanctioned the amount vide memo no 63(6) dated 31.7.2009 (annexure A to the affidavit). Learned counsel submits that the impression created by such statement in the counter affidavit was that a sum of Rs. 1.65,199/ -, as reflected in the annexure A, was purported to be the interest calculated on the delayed payment of retiral benefits, whereas the fact is that the aforesaid amount relates to arrears of salary on account of promotion granted to the petitioner Dr. B.P. Choudhary on the higher post. Even this amount has not been given to the petitioner uptil now. Furthermore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment which has not been assessed and paid till by the respondents although specific direction was given to the respondents by order dated 3.4.2003 in WP(S) 1199 of 2003.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent State would submit that the statement contained in the counter affidavit referred to by the petitioner, though indicates that sanction for payment to the petitioner has been made, but as it appears, the amount of interest at the rate of 5 @ per annum on the delayed payment though has been sanctioned on 1.9.2009, pursuant to which Rs. 26,987/ - has been assessed as payment of interest @ 5% and it has been ordered to be paid to the petitioner.;