[2025:RJ-JP:12737] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7094/2015 Kapoor Chand Saini S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai, aged about 61 years, R/o Bankat Ki Kothi Rajgarh, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Local Self Department, Near 22 Godam, Jaipur. 3. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rajgarh (Alwar). 4. The Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Yadav for Mr. Neeraj Batra-G.C. Mr. Sandeep Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the respondents to make the payment of gratuity, P.F. and commutation amount to the petitioner with arrears and interest. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.09.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation but inspite of his retirement, the retrial dues were not released. Counsel submits that the due amount of Rs. 4,57,000/- was paid to the petitioner in the month of April, 2017 by the order passed by National Lok Adalat on 08.04.2017. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:12737] (2 of 3) [CW-7094/2015] without any justified reasons, the retial dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents, hence the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 9% in terms of Rules 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1996’). 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that Pension Payment Order was released on 13.02.2015 and due gratuity amount of Rs. 3,57,944/- and the other amount of leave encashment etc. were sent to the petitioner in the year 2015 but he refused to accept the same, hence the said delay has occurred in making the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no delay has been caused by the State respondents in releasing the due amount of retiral dues to the petitioner, thus the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest and this petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired on 30.09.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is not in dispute that when retiral dues were not released to the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents for releasing his retiral dues. In para 3 of the reply, the respondents have tried to justify their stand but no documentary evidence has been placed on record that on which alleged date, this amount was tried to be paid to the petitioner. This Court cannot rely on the stand taken by the State. Without any justified reasons, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents for a [2025:RJ-JP:12737] (3 of 3) [CW-7094/2015] considerable time and the same were released on 08.04.2017 and accordingly, the payment of Rs. 4,57,000/- was paid to the petitioner in the month of April, 2017, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 9% in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 for the delayed payment of retiral dues to him. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to comply the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. Stay application and pending application(if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/76