[2025:RJ-JP:14704] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2018 Om Prakash Verma S/os Hri Shiojiram, Retired Associate Professor Public Admn. R/o F 74, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus University Of Rajasthan, Through The Registrar, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr.Madhav Dadhich Mr.Rohit Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.09.2016 and at the time of his retirement, neither any judicial proceedings nor any departmental enquiry was pending against him, but without any justified reason, his retiral dues were withheld by the respondents. Counsel submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the retiral dues have been released in the year 2024. Counsel submits that the respondents were not having any authority to withhold the rightful claim of the petition, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @9% p.a. for delayed payment of retiral dues. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that on account of financial crunch and [2025:RJ-JP:14704] (2 of 2) [CW-12182/2018] financial implications, slight delay has occurred in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner, 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 the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, neither any judicial proceedings nor any departmental enquiry was pending against him. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner stood retired way back in the month of September, 2016 and the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents for a considerable time. 7. This Court is of the view that the respondents were not justified in withholding the same, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @9% p.a. for the intervening period. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 9. Needless to observe, the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /212