[2026:RJ-JP:6507-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 100/2026 1. The Registrar, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota (Raj.) 2. The Comptroller, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus Ravindra Shringi S/o Late Shri K.C. Shringi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 5/105, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmikant For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 11/02/2026 An application (CMCW No.94/2026) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the interest is not required to be paid @ 9% per annum as it was not the fault of the University in not releasing the retiral benefits. We find that the learned Single Judge has directed release of the retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. gratuity, leave encashment and commutation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date it became due till its actual payment. It is not in dispute that there [2026:RJ-JP:6507-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-100/2026] was no departmental enquiry or criminal case pending against the petitioner and therefore, as per provision of the Rules, retiral dues were required to be released immediately. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there was a dispute relating to grant of pay scale is not a sufficient ground for withholding the retiral dues. If the higher pay scale was an issue before the Court that could not come in the way of releasing retiral benefits on the date which the respondent was drawing earlier. As and when the higher pay scale would be made entitled or denied, the same would have its own consequential effects. The stay cannot be said to have been operating for release of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation. No interference is therefore, warranted with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /81