BIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (P&H)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application preferred under Section 151 CPC, applicant-petitioner No.1 has sought the necessary correction of husband's name i.e. Shri Bhagwan instead of Jai Bhagwan.

(2.) At the very out set of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has acknowledged the receipt of retiral benefits. Accordingly, writ petition has rendered infructuous as far as grant of retiral benefits is concerned.

(3.) As regards grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that interest on delayed payment has not been awarded, to which, petitioners are legally entitled. A writ in the nature of mandamus is legally maintainable for giving a direction to make the payment where it is justified in view of judgment delivered in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 (3) SCT 468 as well as Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2000(4) SCT 267. Gist of aforesaid judgment in the case of A.S. Randhawa (supra) is that a writ for direction to pay retiral benefits including interest is maintainable and that pensionary benefits, if released after a delay, entitles the incumbent to interest at the rate of 12%, which may even go upto 18% per annum. In case Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the appeal only on the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, has observed that in case of delay of payment, interest has to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues, in case there is no reason or justification for not making payment. It observed: