[2025:RJ-JP:45376] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21146/2017 Ram Singh Jorwal Meena S/o Harsilal, aged about 61 years, R/o Plot No. 69/70, Prem Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Chief Conservator Of Forest Wild Life, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana, Jaipur. 3. Additional Chief Conservator Of Forest Wild Life, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Dy. Conservator Of Forest And Regional Director I, Ranthambore, Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur. 5. Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Karauli, Rajasthan. 6. Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Dausa, Rajasthan. 7. Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Tonk, Rajasthan. 8. Director Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Swami with Mr. Rakesh Swami For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Singhi for Mr. Rahul Lodha for the Pension Department HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been granted interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits, as required under Rule 89 of the [2025:RJ-JP:45376] (2 of 4) [CW-21146/2017] Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’). He further submits that the petitioner has not been accorded promotion from the date when the persons junior to him have been allowed promotions. He also submits that the petitioner has not been allowed the benefits of leave encashment in accordance of provisions of law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondent submits that the petitioner was granted provisional pension soon after he was acquitted from the criminal charges w.e.f 19.07.2018. He also submits that since the petitioner was facing criminal trial, which came to an end vide judgment dated 19.12.2017 and when the matter came up before the respondent Department with regard to acquittal, the Department proceeded for granting provisional pension, which was allowed to the petitioner on 19.07.2018. He further submits that leave encashment has been allowed to the petitioner as per the provisions of law. He further submits that the petitioner has not been able to show the claim for promotion from the pleadings. 3. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 4. As regards the interest of the delayed payment of the petitioner is concerned, Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 is very clear that an employee would be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral benefits, if delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant. The retiral benefits including the pension was initially not allowed to the petitioner in view of the pendency of criminal case against him. As per the averments made in the [2025:RJ-JP:45376] (3 of 4) [CW-21146/2017] petition, though the petitioner is said to have been acquitted from the criminal charges vide judgment dated 19.12.2017, but there is nothing on record, nor any averments in the pleadings to show that when the petitioner served the judgment of acquittal to the Administrative Department so that his matter can be proceeded for grant of pension. In such circumstances, the delay in making payment of the retiral benefits cannot be attributed to the Department. Hence, in opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest as he has claimed. As regards the claim of petitioner for promotion is concerned, neither in the pleadings nor during arguments, the petitioner is able to show that on what ground he is claiming promotion. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner during submissions stated that some persons junior to the petitioner have already been given promotions, but there is nothing in the pleadings that who are those junior persons who have been allowed promotions. The claim of the petitioner for promotion cannot be accepted for want of specific pleadings and documents. As regards the claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment and promotion is concerned, same cannot be accepted. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. 6. As regards the claim of the petitioner for benefits of leave encashment is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the leave encashment has not been allowed at the rate it was applicable in the case. The petitioner has not given the complete details in pleadings. Hence, the petitioner would be at liberty to [2025:RJ-JP:45376] (4 of 4) [CW-21146/2017] make a representation to the concerned respondent authority who shall consider the same and pass necessary and appropriate order. 7. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /13