[2025:RJ-JP:42035-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 972/2023 Dr. K.c. Gupta (Dr. Kailash Chand Gupta ) S/o Late Shri Omkar Malji, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 60/7, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/10/2025 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant (writ petitioner) claiming the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this appeal and:- (i) By modifying the impugned order dated 14.08.2023, the respondent be directed to release the interest on the retiral dues of the petitioner w.e.f. 02.08.2001 i.e. from the date of retirement. (ii) That any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:42035-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-972/2023] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) submits that the appellant, who was holding the post of Junior Specialist, had submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f 02.08.2001, which was refused by the respondents. Such refusal was challenged by the appellant by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.426/2002, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court vide order 28.02.2017 with a direction that the date of voluntary retirement of the appellant to be treated w.e.f. 02.08.2001. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that appellant’s grievance is that while pension has been granted to him from 02.08.2001, when he was declared retired and the benefits have been paid now after passing of the judgment by learned Single Bench. The pension paid between the year 2001 to 2017 should have carried the interest element and rather than that, while allowing the pension and other benefits, learned Single Bench has not allowed interest on the payment of pension before 28.05.2017. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant (writ petitioner) submits that the learned Single Bench, in the impugned order, has already taken a lenient view because non-functioning of the appellant has not been treated as absence, but he has been given conferred an official status of effective retirement w.e.f 02.08.2001 and all necessary emoluments have been paid and also the interest has been paid w.e.f. 28.05.2017 till the actual date of payment of retiral dues. [2025:RJ-JP:42035-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-972/2023] 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once the judgment in question which rendered the appellant’s retirement to come into effect from 02.08.2001 was itself pronounced on 28.02.2017, then the case for payment of pension has been rightly found to be made out but the payment of interest has not been called for. The interest element granted by the learned Single Bench is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court. 5. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 92-Nirmala/Diksha