KAUSHALYA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had retired as a teacher on March 31, 1993. She requested the respondents to allow her to commute 1/3rd of her pension. The necessary relief having not been granted, she has approached this Court through the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents passed an order dated July 1, 1996 by which the petitioner's request for commutation of pension was accepted. This order was produced before us on July 3, 1996. A copy of the order was also furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Amrit Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that while considering the matter, the respondents have accepted the request for commutation of pension. However, they have ordered the recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,492/- on account of interest on the excess amount of pension paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are not entitled to make this recovery as they were themselves responsible for the delay in deciding the case and releasing the full amount of commuted pension. Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is not able to satisfy us that the department is entitled to the recovery of any amount of interest.

(3.) In this situation, we find that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 8,492/- or any other amount by way of interest from the petitioner. However, since her request for commutation of pension has already been accepted, the writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. The stipulation contained in Clause 8-A of the order dated July 1, 1996 (copy of which is on record as Mark 'A') is set aside.