[2025:RJ-JP:36514] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11843/2025 1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health And Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Circle Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Devkaran Singh Sheoran S/o Shri Manglaram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Plot No. B-120, Indira Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Executive Engineer (Retired), Public Health And Engineering Department, Division Jhunjhunu (Employee Id Rjjw198822016768) ----Respondent/Appellant 2. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 10/09/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘Tribunal’) whereby, while partly allowing the appeal No. 32/2024 filed by the respondent/appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’), the petitioners have been directed to pay interest @9% per annum on [2025:RJ-JP:36514] (2 of 4) [CW-11843/2025] delayed payment of encashment amount of unutilised privilege leave. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant retired as Executive Engineer on 30.06.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed an appeal No. 6318/2022 against the petitioners for payment of the amount of unutilised privilege leave which came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.06.2023, directing the petitioners to pay the amount within a period of three months. When the petitioners failed to honour the order within the stipulated time, the appellant was constrained to file a contempt petition No. 0165/2023 and during its pendency, the payment was made on 14.11.2023. Since, the payment was delayed, the appellant filed another appeal No. 32/2024 seeking interest @12% per annum on delayed payment which was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order impugned dated 09.04.2024. Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, while allowing the appeal, the Tribunal has relied upon the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 as also Circular of the State Government dated 29.07.2016 which provide for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues whereas, the encashment amount of unutilised privilege leave does not fall within the definition of retiral dues. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 09.04.2024 be quashed and set aside and the appeal preferred by the appellant be dismissed. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:36514] (3 of 4) [CW-11843/2025] Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the appellant was not paid the encashment amount of unutilised privilege leave in terms of Rule 91 B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which entitles a Government servant on retirement from service on superannuation, cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised privilege leave not exceeding 300 days at his/her credit at the time of retirement. It is not case of the petitioners that since the appellant had incurred any disqualification for payment of the aforesaid amount, he was not paid the same in time. Since, he was not paid the amount without any reason, the appellant had to file an appeal bearing No. 6318/2022 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.06.2023 directing the petitioners to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of three months. Still, the payment was not made despite direction by the Tribunal constraining the appellant to file a contempt petition bearing No. 0165/2023 which came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2023 as infructuous on the premise that during its pendency, the payment was made which, as a matter of fact, was paid on 14.11.2023, i.e., after about one year and five months from the date of retirement and beyond the period of three months as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to offer any explanation for this delay. True it is that the Tribunal erred in directing payment of interest @ 9% per annum relying on the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and Circular of the State Government dated 29.07.2016 which are applicable on the retiral dues and the [2025:RJ-JP:36514] (4 of 4) [CW-11843/2025] amount of unutilised privilege leave does not fall within the mischief of “retiral dues”; but, even otherwise, the Tribunal is empowered to award interest on delayed payment of dues to the Government servant. As already held, the petitioners have miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay in payment of the amount equivalent to leave salary of the unutilised privilege leave. The payment of interest @9% per annum, even otherwise, cannot be held to be exorbitant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition which appears to have been filed taking a hyper technical view of the matter with no explanation whatsoever for the delay in payment of the amount of unutilised privilege leave to the appellant and constraining him to take the legal recourse again and again for the same. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the appellant. The rest Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. Compliance be made within a period of four weeks from today failing which the petitioners shall be liable to pay cost @ Rs. 500/- per day payable to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and the officer(s) responsible for delay would bear this cost part. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/54