JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the interest @18% per annum on the retirement dues which were paid to the petitioner about 3½ years after his retirement.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired as Deputy Range Officer on 31.01.2017 and there was neither any disciplinary proceedings nor any judicial proceedings nor any other statutory proceedings of any kind against the petitioner. She submitted that in fact there were some complaints against the petitioner which were pending before the department and one complaint before the Vigilance Department but there were neither any criminal/judicial proceedings against the petitioner nor any departmental inquiry of any sort and all those complaints were even finally disposed of by the department itself. She submitted that even after the retirement of the petitioner in case the department wanted to exercise its power, the same could have been done under Rule 2.2 either under clause (a), (b) and (c) and the meaning of expression judicial proceedings and disciplinary proceedings is duly defined in the aforesaid Rules. She submitted that the complaint which has got no sanctity for the purpose of withholding the retiral benefits cannot become a ground for withholding the pension and pensionary benefits which are otherwise Constitutional Rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3. She further submitted that when the pension and pensionary benefits were not paid to the petitioner, he filed a civil writ petition before this Court bearing No.15741 of 2019 in which vide Annexure P-3 dated 31.05.2019 a direction was issued to the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order on the claim raised by the petitioner in the legal notice within three months. She submitted that no such speaking order was passed or conveyed to the petitioner despite the order passed by this Court nor anything has been so stated by the respondents in the reply filed by them. However, acting upon the directions to the extent of considering the payment of retiral benefits, the same were paid to the petitioner in April 2020 and that was also after a period of one year after the passing of the aforesaid order on 31.05.2019. She submitted that firstly the action of the respondent-State was contemptuous in nature for not complying with the order passed by this Court and secondly even assumingly the speaking order was not required to be passed on the basis of payment which was made even then the payments were made after a period of about one year after the passing of the aforesaid order on 31.05.2019 since the payments were made in the month of April 2020 and in this way there had been a total delay of 3½ years in the payment of pension and pensionary benefits which have been withheld by the respondent-State without any authority of law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Chopra, learned DAG, Punjab submitted while referring to the reply filed by the State through its Divisional Forest Officer, Amritsar that the delay has occurred because there were four complaints against the petitioner including one vigilance inquiry which were ultimately disposed of and because of the pendency of these complaints, the pension and pensionary benefits got delayed. He submitted that in view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of interest.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner retired as the Deputy Range Officer on 31.01.2017. There was no disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings or criminal proceedings or any other statutory proceedings against the petitioner at the time of the retirement of the petitioner or even thereafter. Even as per the reply filed by the State, there were some complaints against the petitioner and there was one complaint pertain