[2025:RJ-JP:7262] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13238/2022 Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ratti Ram Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Retired Senior Assistant, Government Senior Secondary School, Jagta -Basai, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bas, District Alwar, Resident Of D-82, Surya Nagar, Alwar-301001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Govt., Finance Department (Rules Division), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005. 2. The Director, Pension And Pensioner Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur(Rajasthan)302005. 3. The Director(Secondary Education), Bikaner(Rajasthan) 4. The Chief Block Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Kishangarh-Bas(Alwar) 5. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Jagta- Basai, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bas, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for Mr. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and encashment of leave etc. [2025:RJ-JP:7262] (2 of 4) [CW-13238/2022] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2020 after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that prior to his retirement his pension case was prepared by different authorities and the same was found to be valid and accordingly, recommendations were made for releasing the pension dues to the petitioner. Counsel submits that even on 28.10.2020, the Chief Block Education Officer considered the pension case of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner is entitled to get pension on his last drawn pay i.e. 45,300/- under the matrix level-10. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was considered as equivalent to the case of Jagdish Chand Gupta, Shyam Lal & Satish Kumar Gupta to whom the benefits of retirement dues were extended within time but unnecessarily, the pension case of the petitioner was delayed and accordingly, all retirement dues were delayed. Counsel submits that the respondents have misinterpreted the notification dated 30.10.2017 which was applicable with effect from 01.07.2013. Counsel submits that though there was no confusion as the aforesaid notification was decided vide order dated 25.11.2021 by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur while deciding D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5920/2021. Counsel submits that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a separate petition bearing No. 3142/2021 and the same was disposed of on 13.05.2022, wherein, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek his remedy for getting interest by way of filing a separate petition. Counsel submits that finally the retiral dues were released to the petitioner in the month of May 2022 & June 2022 and the delay has been caused unnecessarily, hence, [2025:RJ-JP:7262] (3 of 4) [CW-13238/2022] under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on account of certain information which have been required to be furnished by the petitioner, the process has taken its own time and immediately after completion of the entire formalities, the retiral dues were released in favour of the petitioner immediately, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2020 after attaining the age of superannuation. It is worthy to note here that the pension case of the petitioner was examined at different levels which was duly certified by the Judicial Accountant and the Chief Block Education Officer, and the case of the petitioner was found to be at par with the case of other three persons namely Jagdish Chand Gupta, Shyam Lal & Satish Kumar Gupta and this exercise was done by the Chief Block Elementary Education wayback prior to retirement of the petitioner i.e. 21.12.2020, even then his retiral dues were withheld by the respondents for a considerable time for more than two years, the reasons assigned by the respondents are not justified being merely technical, and the rightful claim of a retired pensioner cannot be withheld when the entire documents were available in the Office of the respondents. The respondents were [2025:RJ-JP:7262] (4 of 4) [CW-13238/2022] duty bound to do the needful exercise prior to retirement of the petitioner but in the instant case, they have failed to do so. The petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% in terms of Rule 89 of Rules of 1996 for the delayed payment of retiral dues. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. The respondents are supposed to comply the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/187