Judgment

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

Before adverting to the grounds raised in the present Regular Second Appeal, certain facts needs to be enumerated which has led to the filing of the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. The respondent-plaintiff retired on 31.07.2008 and became entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits in respect of the service rendered by him with the Government of Haryana. The pensionary benefits were only released in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the year 2009 and the respondent-plaintiff claimed interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. As the benefit of interest was not extended to him, he preferred a civil suit claiming interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits and his suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18.04.2011 allowing him the interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits with 18% interest. The judgment of the trial Court was appealed by the respondent-State, which appeal has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 31.05.2013 upholding the grant of interest @ 18% in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State against the order of the trial Court dated 18.04.2011 by which, the interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits has been allowed @ 18% as well as the judgment of the lower Appellate Court dated 31.05.2013 by which the appeal filed by the State of Haryana has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.04.2011 has been upheld.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent-plaintiff himself, after he retired on 31.07.2008 wrote certain letters for the grant of benefit of particular number of years of service rendered by him, which application was under consideration due to which, there was a delay in the release of the pensionary benefits, hence, as there was no intentional delay on the part of the Department, the grant of interest by the Courts below on the release of pensionary benefits is contrary to the facts on record as well as the settled principle of law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the grant of 18% interest on the delayed payment is contrary to the Section 34 of the CPC according to which, the interest can only be granted by the Courts keeping in view the bank rate, hence, grant of interest @ 18% is not only contrary to the provisions of law but also to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7113 of 2014 titled as D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, decided on 01.08.2014 wherein, only 9% interest was granted.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff controvert the plea of the appellants and submits that once there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits, whatever the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for, the same should have been released to him within the specified period. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff further submits that as there was delay, which is conceded but being termed as procedural one, the same cannot come to the rescue of the Department so as to avoid the payment of interest keeping in view the settled principle of law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. From the evidence, which has come on record, the delay in release of the pensionary benefits is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant even during the arguments. Learned State counsel has not been able to rebut the fact that the payment for which the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for after his reti