[2025:RJ-JP:6991] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17250/2011 Gullu Khan S/o. Shri Handu Khan, Mohalla Gopalgarh, Near Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur Raj ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj. 3. I.g. Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur Raj. 4. Director, Pension And Pension Welfare Department, Rajasthan Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Addl. GC Ms. Karishma Soni JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity as well as commutation of pension and arrears of revised pension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2006 and the retiral dues were extended to him on 25.05.2011. Learned counsel submits that there was no justified reason for delaying the retiral dues of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest in terms of Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter [2025:RJ-JP:6991] (2 of 3) [CW-17250/2011] referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) on delayed payment of retiral dues. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that a charge-sheet under Rule 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) was served upon the petitioner prior to his retirement. Learned counsel submits that provisional pension was released to the petitioner immediately after his retirement in terms of Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996 and because of pendency of departmental enquiry, gratuity amount could not be released. Learned counsel submits that the enquiry could not be conducted prior to retirement of the petitioner and in the meantime, he stood retired so the matter was sent to the Governor for passing appropriate orders. Learned counsel submits that the Governor vide its order dated 18.11.2010 passed a direction to drop the charges issued against the petitioner under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid order, the charges was dropped and, immediately thereafter, the due amount of gratuity and commutation of pension was released in favour of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958 was pending against him. This fact is also not in [2025:RJ-JP:6991] (3 of 3) [CW-17250/2011] dispute that after retirement, provisional pension was released to him. This fact is also not in dispute that in terms of Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, a delinquent employee is not entitled to get the amount of gratuity till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. This fact is also not in dispute that the departmental proceedings could not be concluded at the time of retirement of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the matter was referred to the Governor for seeking appropriate orders and, thereafter, the Governor took a decision and directed the respondents to drop the enquiry initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958 as the petitioner stood retired. In pursuance of the order of the order dated 18.11.2010, the matter was dropped by the respondents vide order dated 07.04.2011 and, immediately thereafter, the gratuity and commutation of pension was paid to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already got provisional pension for the intervening period and gratuity amount has already been paid to the petitioner when the matter was dropped, hence under these circumstances, the respondents were justified in withholding the amount of gratuity and commutation of pension of the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/112