High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Durga Parshad vs State Of Haryana & Others on 22 July, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Durga Parshad vs State Of Haryana & Others on 22 July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                         Civil Writ Petition No.16598 of 2001 (O & M)
                                           Date of Decision: July 22, 2008


Durga Parshad
                                                             .....PETITIONER(S)

                                     VERSUS


State of Haryana & Others
                                                           .....RESPONDENT(S)
                                 .      .     .


CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -      Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for
                the petitioner.

                Mr.    Narender   Sura,    Assistant

Advocate General, Haryana, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for
Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.

. . .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

On May 21, 2008, the following order was

passed:-

“The prayer made in the application is that
respondent Nos.2 to 4 be directed to release the amount of
retiral benefits to the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4, on instructions from Vasudua, Accountant, Municipal
Council, Bhiwani, states that the retiral benefits of the
petitioner have been released. Interest, however, has not been
paid.

Civil Writ Petition No.16598 of 2001 [2]

Adjourned to 16.7.2008 to consider the claim
of the petitioner with regard to payment of interest in view of
the delay caused in release of retiral benefits.

In the meantime, learned counsel for
respondent No.4 would indicate as to who is responsible for
causing delay of seven years in releasing the retiral benefits.”

Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for

respondent No.4, Municipal Council, Bhiwani, states

that the interest has been calculated @ 6% and has

already been despatched to the petitioner by registered

AD post. The interest is on account of delayed release

of retiral benefits.

In view of the above, it transpires that

not only the retiral benefits but also the interest has

been paid. No cause of action survives in this case.

The petition is accordingly disposed of as

having been rendered infructuous.



                                                                      (AJAI LAMBA)
July 22, 2008                                                            JUDGE
avin