DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of filling this petition, the prayer of the petitioner was for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the retiral as well as all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, all retiral benefits have been released but petitioner is also entitled to interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment and other retiral benefits as there was an inordinate delay in releasing these benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition has become infructuous and petitioner is not entitled for interest as one criminal case under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. & 13(1)(d) I.P.C. of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not found to be involved in the inquiry and all allegations levelled against him are baseless and without any substance as no such duty was assigned to the petitioner during that period. Learned counsel has also brought to notice of the Court the order dated 24.05.2006, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was admitted and interim order was also passed on that very date.