[2025:RJ-JP:36684] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8716/2012 Dr. Pushplata Kothari W/o Shri Ramesh D/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Kothari, Aged about 64 years R/o Plot No. 135, Saheli Nagar, B- Block, Udaipur Presently Residing At E 79, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 3. Additional Director Gazetted Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfair Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupender Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition filed is by the petitioner for seeking direction against the respondents to sanction and release her pension and all other post retiral benefits along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired w.e.f. 31 December, 2007. However, after her retirement, in order to harass and victimize her, an issue with regard to her date of birth was raised to created hurdles in her post retiral benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:36684] (2 of 4) [CW-8716/2012] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of deliberate mischief done by Mr. Ramesh Vyas (Junior Accountant) as well as the then Principal Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Jaipur, interpolations and corrections were done in the service book of the petitioner so as to raise a question with regard to genuineness of the date of birth. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents themselves have conducted an internal enquiry, and have come to a conclusion that the delay in sanctioning the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner has occurred only on account of misdeeds of aforesaid Mr. Ramesh Vyas, and even the notesheet was processed for placing aforesaid Mr. Ramesh Vyas under suspension and to initiate enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The aforesaid notesheet has been placed as Annexure-9 along with rejoinder by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel emphasizes that internal enquiry makes it clear that the delay has occurred solely for the reasons not attributable to the petitioner, and on account of mischief committed by the other officials for which, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although during the pendency of the instant writ petition, pension and other post retiral benefits have been released by the respondents on 22.04.2014, yet she has not been awarded interest on the delayed payment as well as payment of 64 days Privileged Leave (PL) has also not been given, whereas under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of post retiral benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:36684] (3 of 4) [CW-8716/2012] 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submits that on perusal of the record of the petitioner after her retirement, it emerged that there was confusion with regard to correct date of birth of the petitioner, and without ascertaining the correct date of birth of the petitioner, the respondents could not have sanctioned the post retiral benefits. In the instant case, the controversy with regard to date of birth of the petitioner was resolved only after fact finding enquiry in December, 2011. Therefore, delay occurred in sanctioning and releasing the post retiral benefits to the petitioner was quite bonafide, and for which, the respondents are not liable to pay interest. 6. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and pertains to preparatory work for pension and the process of verifying record before retirement, makes it abundantly clear that even two years prior to the date of retirement of any employee, the respondents are under legal obligation to prepare document regarding pension benefits and in case, there was some discrepancy with regard to date of birth, it could have been resolved within such period of two years. But instead of ensuring removal of all the doubts timely, the respondents negligently delayed the proceedings and initiated the process for clarifying the unfounded doubt with regard to date of birth of the petitioner much after her retirement. Although, such doubts were over after internal enquiry in December 2011, yet even thereafter unexplainable long delay has taken place in releasing the pension, which was actually released in the month of April, 2014. [2025:RJ-JP:36684] (4 of 4) [CW-8716/2012] 8. In the instant case, the documents as well as notesheet (Annexure-9) would make it clear that, the petitioner was not at fault in respect of any confusion, if drawn by the respondents with regard to her date of birth, and she was rather a sufferer of mischief committed by the other employees, in respect of, even disciplinary action was proposed. 9. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of sheer enaction of the respondents in releasing her pension and other retiral benefits for a period of 7 years. Hence, in view of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is entitled for an interest @ 9% per annum for the delay that occurred in releasing the pension and other retiral benefits. 10. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay an interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner, for the delay caused in releasing the pension and other post retiral benefits. Such interest shall be calculated and be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the outstanding amount shall carry exemplary interest @ 12% per annum. In case, any amount with regard to PL is due, the petitioner shall submit a representation before the respondents, and the same shall also be decided by the respondents within the aforesaid period, and in case, the amount is due under the head, the same shall also be released. 11. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/92