[2025:RJ-JP:4872] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14141/2011 K.K. Banerjee S/o Late Shri Bhawani Prasad Banerjee, aged about 62 years, R/o H. No. 79/88, Arawali Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Phed, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Chief Engineer Adm. And Technical Member Rwssmb, 2, Civil Lines, Jaipur Rajasthan 3. The Superintending Engineer, PHED, Circle Kota Rajasthan 4. The Executive Engineer, PHED, District Rural Division, Kota. 5. The Assistant Engineer, PHED Distribution, Sub Division I, Kota Rajasthan 6. Joint Director, Directorate Pensions and Pensioners Welfare Department, Kota Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Gausingha Ms. Yuvika Pilania-Asstt.G.C. for Ms. Minakshi Jain-G.C. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for releasing the gratuity and commutation amount to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. Contents of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation but his retiral dues including gratuity and [2025:RJ-JP:4872] (2 of 3) [CW-14141/2011] commutation amount were withheld by the respondents, hence he approached this Court by way of filing of this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was pending against him and thereafter, he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 10% part of pension for one year. Counsel submits that immediately thereafter, the petitioner was asked upon to submit the requisite form but the petitioner refused to submit the same, hence slight delay has occurred in releasing the gratuity and commutation amount to the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief including the interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. 4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that disciplinary enquiry came to an end on 26.07.2010, where the penalty of stoppage of 10% part of pension of the petitioner for a period of one year was passed, this Court finds no justified reasons to withhold the retrial dues of the petitioner for a considerable time. The respondents were supposed to release the retiral dues to the petitioner immediately after conclusion of the domestic enquiry. Unnecessary delay has occurred for which the petitioner is entitled to get interest at @ 9% in terms of the Rules 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1996’). 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner for the delayed [2025:RJ-JP:4872] (3 of 3) [CW-14141/2011] payment of retiral dues and other service benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. the date when the punishment order was passed in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996. 6. Needless to observe that the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. Since the petitioner has remained unrepresented before this Court and he is not aware about passing of this order, let a copy of this order be sent to the residential address of the petitioner mentioned in the memo of cause title, for his intimation and information. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/114