[2025:RJ-JP:4232] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6711/2018 Ramji Lal Chouhan, S/o Sh. Hanumana Ram, Resident of 204, Savitri Sadan, 4-C, Jamunapuri, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur Raj.. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Department of Education Group-3, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner/director, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Director, Department of Pension, Government of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/01/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the retiral dues to the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation but his retiral dues was withheld by the respondents for a period of almost one year without any justified reason. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:4232] (2 of 3) [CW-6711/2018] that the stand of the respondent was that the original service book of the petitioner was missing. Hence, under these circumstances, a duplicate service book was prepared in the month of December, 2017 itself and the same was available in the office of the respondents even then, without any justified reason, his retiral dues were withheld. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules of 1996’). 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that in absence of the service book of the petitioner, the retrial dues would not be released. Counsel submits that the moment, the duplicate service book became available, the retrial dues were released to the respondents, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any 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 the petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is also not in dispute that the retiral dues were released to him on 28.08.2018. The justification for delay, as given by the respondents is that the service book of the petitioner went missing and the same was not traceable. It is the duty of the welfare State to maintain the service book of each employee and they cannot take the lame excuse that the service book of an employee was misplaced and was not available and thus, the delay occurred and the retiral dues of the petitioner cannot be released on time. Even, [2025:RJ-JP:4232] (3 of 3) [CW-6711/2018] if the service book of the petitioner was not available with the respondents, the petitioner cannot be blamed for that. 6. Even otherwise also, the duplicate service book was provided in the office of the respondents by the petitioner in the month of December, 2017, hence, under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the State Authorities to withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner till 28.08.2018, the action of the respondents was not justified. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996. Needless to observe that the respondents would comply the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/60