[2025:RJ-JP:5596] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21446/2017 Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri B.P. Sharma, Resident of Plot No. 112, Gomes Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Additional Chief Secretary Forest, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Hoff, Government of Rajasthan, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Sansthanik Area, Jhalana Jaipur. 3. The Chief Conservator of Forest Wild Life and Chief Wild Life Warden, Government of Rajasthan, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Sansthanik Area, Jhalana Jaipur. 4. The Dy. Conservator Forest, Wild Life, Jaipur, Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, Old Coal Depot, Panipech, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. 5. The Director Pension, Government of Rajasthan, Near Jyoti Naagr, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sorabh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr.Dheeraj Kumar Tripathi, Addl.GC. Mr.Shubham Gupta for Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the interest on retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2017, after attaining the age of [2025:RJ-JP:5596] (2 of 3) [CW-21446/2017] superannuation, in spite of passing of considerable time, without any justified reason, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld and the same were released on 07.08.2018 Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues @ 9% p.a., in terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was subjected to certain Departmental Enquiries and certain punishment orders were passed against him, that is why, delay has occurred in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest and the instant writ petition is liable to rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that prior to the retirement of the petitioner all Departmental Enquiries were completed and appropriate orders were passed prior to the retirement of the petitioner and neither any criminal case nor any Departmental Enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, even then, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents for a considerable time and the same were released on 07.08.2018. The delay explained by the respondents is not justified, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. on delayed [2025:RJ-JP:5596] (3 of 3) [CW-21446/2017] payment of amount of retiral dues in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996. 6. It is made clear that the respondents are supposed to comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/44