HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8679/2015 Yudhisthir Saxena S/o Late Shri Harinarayan Saxena, 88, Usha Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Director, Government Of Rajasthan, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Director, Local Body, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal with Ms. Gunjan Chawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2012, after attaining the age of superannuation, but his retiral dues were withheld by the respondents for a considerable time without any justification. Counsel submits that no departmental inquiry or criminal case was pending against the petitioner, even then, his retiral dues were withheld till 09.12.2013 without any justified reason, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @9% per annum in terms of the Rule (2 of 3) [CW-8679/2015] 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’). 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Pension Department opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the pension case of the petitioner was received by the Department of Pension on 05.12.2013 and the pension was released within a period of eight days i.e. on 12.12.2013. Counsel submits that there was no delay on the part of the Pension Department, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the parent department i.e. respondent No.2, in-spite of service of notice. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2012 after attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is also not in dispute that at the time of his retirement neither any departmental inquiry nor judicial inquiry was pending against him and a certificate has been issued in this regard by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur on 12.10.2012 (Annexure-2), in-spite of above, the reitral dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents for a period of almost 14 months and no justification has been given by the parent department i.e. respondent No.2 about the delay in sending the pension case (3 of 3) [CW-8679/2015] of the petitioner to the Department of Pension. Unnecessarily, 14 months delay has been caused by the respondent No.2 in sending the pension case of the petitioner to the Pension Department. 7. This fact is not in dispute that there is no delay on the part of the Department of Pension in releasing the due pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner and it has acted immediately after receipt of the pension case of the petitioner and consequently, released the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. 8. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, as the delay has been caused without any justified reason. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondent No.2 to pay interest @9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/48