[2025:RJ-JP:13270] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15951/2018 Smt. Rajkumari Singh W/o Sh. Yashwant Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 6-V-28, Mahaveer Nagar Vistar Yojana, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Director Cum-Deputy Secretary, Directorate of Local Bodies, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Civil, Jaipur 2. Deputy Director (Regional), Department of Local Bodies, Kota 3. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Kota 4. Administrator, Nagar Nigam, Kota 5. Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Yadav for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/03/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Warden on 01.01.1994 and she stood retired on 30.06.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that the petitioner has rendered her services on the said post for more than 23 years, but at the time of her retirement, the retiral dues were not released and even after [2025:RJ-JP:13270] (2 of 3) [CW-15951/2018] passing of more than 8 years, except the provisional pension, the same has not been released, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the provisional pension has already been paid to her but the retiral dues have not been paid to the petitioner on the basis of audit objection raised by the Local Fund Audit Department whereby an objection was raised that at the time of appointment of the petitioner that her age was 36 years 6 months 6 days, thus, her appointment was irregular, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral dues and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 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 was appointed on the post of Warden on 01.01.1994. This fact is also not in dispute that after rendering her services for more than 23 years, the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2017. This fact is also not in dispute that after retirement of the petitioner her retiral dues have not been released by the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing the instant writ petition. 6. For the first time, a technical objection has been taken by the respondent-State in the reply that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, she was over age i.e. 36 years 6 months 6 days. It is quite shocking and surprising, on the part of the State, to take such an objection after the retirement of the petitioner. It is [2025:RJ-JP:13270] (3 of 3) [CW-15951/2018] not the case of the respondent-State that the petitioner has misled the appointing authority at the time of her recruitment and concealed her actual age. With a watchful eye and adopting the measures of selection process, the appointment was given to the petitioner after taking into account her age. The petitioner was allowed to render her services for more than two decades and at the fag end of her service career, the respondents withheld her retiral dues on a ground which is not tenable in the eyes of law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of estoppel would come into play and the respondents cannot withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner after their own act of permitting the petitioner to render services for more than two decades, even if she was over age at the time of initial appointment. The respondent-State are estopped by their own act, hence, under these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to get all retiral dues. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. 7. The respondents are directed to release all retiral dues to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 without any further delay. 8. Needless to observe, the respondents would 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. 9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/85