( 2025:HHC:553 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 110 of 2018. Date of Decision : 2 nd January, 2025. O.P. Chauhan .… Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Sikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In the present Writ Petition challenge has been laid to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench at Shimla) in O.A. No. 063/00044/2016 on 01.11.2017. 2. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal as such was for the payment of interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits which was rejected vide order dated 19.02.2016. The Tribunal found that the applicant is not entitled for award of interest on the amount of leave encashment and CGEGIS, which were to the tune of Rs.3,29,314/- and Rs.39,862/- respectively since the petitioner had 2 ( 2025:HHC:553 ) retired on 30.04.2012 as Sub Post master but apparently he had only made the representation on 17.08.2015 to release the amount which was stated to be illegally withheld. After the receipt of the representation, the respondents had disbursed the amount on 12.10.2015 and thereafter another representation had been made by the petitioner on 03.12.2015 requesting the respondents to pay interest on the entire amount. 3. The stand of the respondents was that the petitioner had not supplied the requisite documents and the benefit would have been granted to him had he done so and only in March, 2015, he had asked for his retiral dues and submitted the necessary documents. In result, the relief as such was declined on the ground that once the requisite documents had not been supplied, the pensionary benefits could not have been paid. 4. A perusal of order dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure P-8), the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, goes to show that while rejecting the representation dated 03.12.2015, the respondents had as such specifically mentioned that after fulfillment of codal formalities as per the rules, the payment had been made as per the approval given by the Chief Post Master General and there was no intentional delay in payment of retiral benefits. 3 ( 2025:HHC:553 ) 5. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents to the petition also goes to show that the petitioner had availed earned leave for five days w.e.f. 09.09.2009 to 13.09.2009 and thereafter he had availed the leave on medical ground w.e.f. 14.09.2009 to 02.10.2009 and he was asked to submit medical certificate but he did not do so. He had also availed leave on medical ground w.e.f. 09.08.2010 to 01.10.2010 and thereafter applied for leave. But as per the admissibility certificate, the same was not due as he had only 266 days of earned leave and 64 days of half pay leave to his credit upto 31.12.2009 as such he was asked to furnish revised application form, but nothing was heard about the petitioner after retirement. He had also taken earned leave w.e.f. 28.05.2011 to 11.06.2011 6. Thus, it is apparent that these factual matrix have not been controverted in the manner and rather it is not disputed that the whole case of the petitioner was on the strength of his representation dated 03.12.2015, though he had retired on 30.04.2012. Nothing has been brought on record to show that in the intervening period which was more than 2 and ½ years what the petitioner was doing. The aforesaid stand of the respondent was not controverted by the petitioner before this Court by filing rejoinder as also before the Tribunal. 4 ( 2025:HHC:553 ) 7. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for award of interest on the amount of leave encashment and CGEGIS as he had not produced the necessary documents and in the month of March, 2015, when the petitioner had approached them for the first time and thereafter completed the requisite formalities, the respondents had disbursed the amount to him immediately, on 12.10.2025. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would warrant us to interfere. 9. Resultantly, we are constrained to dismiss the instant petition. Ordered accordingly. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 2nd January, 2025. (jai)