[2025:RJ-JP:43416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3165/2023 Smt Bhagwati Sharma Wife Of Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of House No. 475/3, B. K. Kaul Nagar, Ambe Vihar, Foysagar Road, Ajmer (Raj.). (Senior Citizen). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary Department Of School Education And Language, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 (Raj.). (Formerly Known As The Chief Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education) 2. Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner-334001 (Raj.) 3. District Education Officer, (Mukhyalya), Secondary Education Topdada, District Ajmer (Raj.).305001 (Formerly Known As District Education Officer Secondary First Ajmer) 4. Principal Savitri Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Civil Lines, Ajmer (Formerly Known As Savitri Girls Senior Secondary School, Ajmer). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13620/2022 Smt. Ratan Kanwar Wife Of Shri Mansingh Tanwar, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Plot No. 4, Aakash Deep Guest House Ke Paas, Gokhle Marg, Ajmer (Senior Citizen) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Thorugh Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajkiya Kanya Mahavidyalaya Ajmer, (Purv Me Savitri Kanya Mahavidyalaya Ajmer ) Zariya Pracharya, Khadim Tourist Banglow Ke Saamne, Civil Lines, Ajmer. 3. Commissioner, College Shiksha Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:43416] (2 of 6) [CW-3165/2023] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17011/2022 Miss Mahanoor Hasan Zuberi D/o Shri Dr. Jahurrul Hasan, Aged About 75 Years, R/o - H.no. 212/34, Nawab Sahib House, Jhalra, Ajmer (Senior Citizen) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Government Girls College, Ajmer, (Formerly Savitri Girls College, Ajmer) Through Principal, Khadim Tourist Bangalow Ke Samne, Civil Lines, Ajmer. 3. Commissioner, College Education Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Iliyas Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, DGC Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore & Mr. Anshuman Singh both for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/10/2025 1. Considered application No.1/2024 and 2/2024 in C.W. No.3165/2023, 1/2024 and 1/2023 in C.W. No.13623/2022, and 1/2023 in C.W No.17011/2022. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the controversy involved in these writ petitions has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Shakuntla Tanwar Vs. State and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13246/2016 on 05.12.2016. He further submits that these [2025:RJ-JP:43416] (3 of 6) [CW-3165/2023] three writ petitions be disposed of in light of similar directions issued in case of Smt. Shakuntala Tanwar Vs. State (supra). 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Devansh Sharma, DGC and Mr. Sachin Singh on behalf of Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG submits that judgment in case of Smt. Shakuntala Tanwar Vs. State (supra) has attained finality and if any benefit is extendable in light of said judgment and petitioners are entitled, the respondents may consider to grant and they have no objection in disposal of these writ petitions. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the material placed on record, the controversy involved in these writ petitions has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Shakuntala Tanwar Vs. State (supra) with following observations/directions:- This Court has heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the present petitioners are the retired teachers of the erstwhile aided institutions which have been taken over by the State Government along with its management, assets & liabilities and documentary evidence to this effect is available on record and as regards their claim on merit is concerned regarding payment of leave encashment/ gratuity/selection scale/arrears of pay on fixation in the revised pay- scales which were made applicable from time to time all retiral dues are covered under the Act, 1989 & the Rules, 1993 framed there under. The only justification tendered by respondent's counsel before this Court is that as they are the retired employees from the aided institution before the Government has taken over the aided institutions, management, assets & liabilities the State Government [2025:RJ-JP:43416] (4 of 6) [CW-3165/2023] had its limitation to share/sanction towards his liability and secondly as usual the objection is that which the Government Counsel ordinarily raises of delay. This Court finds no substance in either of the submission of respondent's counsel for the simple reason that the delay at least may not come in way of the employees in approaching the Court for release of their legitimate retiral dues to which they are indisputably entitled for under the Act, 1989 & the Rules, 1993 framed there under and if the State Government on its own was at fault, at least it cannot take shelter of delay in approaching the Court, on the contrary when the state machinery fails in discharge of its obligation, that compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by filing instant petitions with their legitimate grievance and under those compelling circumstances delay at least cannot be said to be fatal depriving the petitioners from their retiral dues to which they are legitimately entitled for under the law. As regards their objection that these were the aided institutions receiving 90% aid from the State Government during the period when the petitioners stood retired from service for which the State Government, as alleged, has its limited liability but after the aided institutions are being taken over along with management, assets & liabilities, it is none other but the State Government who has to settle retiral dues of the individual employee to which he is entitled for under the law, however, it will not preclude the Government in making recovery from the aided institutions if permissible under the law but at the same time as regards their retiral dues are concerned, it is the duty/responsibility of the State Government to release funds for making payment of their retiral dues which includes their leave encashment/gratuity/selection scale/ arrears of pay on fixation of revised pay-scales, obviously for the period they have rendered service in the aided institutions and [2025:RJ-JP:43416] (5 of 6) [CW-3165/2023] this Court finds no justification in what is being submitted by the State Counsel. Although reply to the petitions has not been filed but even from the submissions made by Ld. Additional Advocate General, to whom sufficient opportunity has been afforded, no reasonable cause or justification is coming forward, though the submission made by the State Counsel has been taken note of & put forward while the reply being filed but it is made clear that their objection has been taken note of by the Court in passing the present order and after affording opportunity the defence put forward by the State Counsel to safeguard interest of the State Government has been taken note of by this Court & the same are of no substance. This Court finds substance in the submission of petitioners' counsel that the retiral dues which has been withheld by the Government without any reasonable cause or justification, certainly relate back to the date it became due until its actual payment payable under the Act, 1989 & the Rules, 1993 framed there under & not being at fault and delay indeed is on the part of the Government in releasing their retiral dues which makes them entitled for interest @ 9% per annum in terms of R.89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules,1996 & taking note thereof this Court considers it appropriate to direct that while releasing retiral dues to the individual employee at least the Government should pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date it became due until actual payment made. Consequently, writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release retiral dues to the individual petitioner which includes their leave encashment/gratuity/selection scale/arrears of pay on fixation of their revised pay-scales, which may be computed within a period of two months and Court after computation payment be made within one month thereafter which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum [2025:RJ-JP:43416] (6 of 6) [CW-3165/2023] from the date it became due until its actual payment, at the same time, if the respondent fails to carry out the exercise (supra) within the stipulated period as indicated, the amount so calculated/computed shall carry further interest @ 18% per annum after the stipulated period." 5. In view of submissions, these writ petitions are disposed in terms of the directions issued in case of Smt. Shakuntala Tanwar Vs. State (supra). 6. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this order within a period of three months. The respondents are further directed to do computation of the payment within a period of two months and make payment after calculation/computation of the same within a period of two months thereafter. 7. Instant writ petitions, stay application and misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /42-44