[2026:RJ-JP:17803] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 850/2023 Mahesh Chandra Gupta S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan, aged about 62 years, R/o 169, Girnar Colony South, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. University Of Rajasthan, through its Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, through its Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhojak. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 27/04/2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for final disposal of the present writ petition. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying the pensionary benefits including the amount of gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment as admissible to the petitioner after computing the same on the basis of the aforesaid pay fixation order dated 25.07.2018. The interest @ 9% per annum has also been claimed on the aforesaid dues. 3. The facts of the writ petition disclose that the petitioner was suspended, while he was on duty, on account of pendency of a criminal case. While the period of suspension was in force, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charge by the judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner made an [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (2 of 8) [CW-850/2023] application for revocation of the suspension order and deemed reinstatement. The order of deemed reinstatement by revoking the suspension was made on 25.08.2022 (Annex.10). In spite of such order of deemed reinstatement revoking the suspension order, the respondents have not settled the pensionary benefits including the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension from the date of fixation of pay. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, the amount relating to the gratuity was paid on 07.03.2025 and the amount of leave encashment was paid on 25.03.2025. However, till date, there is no final settlement of pension. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a request for commutation of pension as the pension was not settled after the order of his deemed reinstatement was passed. It is also his contention that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1972’) on his superannuation and the said benefits shall have to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of his retirement/ superannuation and if such payment is not made within the stipulated time, he is entitled for interest thereon. It is also his argument that the petitioner is also entitled to immediate payment of leave encashment upon his deemed reinstatement by revoking the suspension order. The said amount of leave encashment was also not paid within time, therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment. [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (3 of 8) [CW-850/2023] 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was put under suspension and upon his superannuation, provisional pension of 100% entitlement was made. His deemed reinstatement was ordered upon his acquittal by revoking the suspension order of the petitioner. It is also his contention that for the purpose of claiming commutation of pension, an application is required to be made within a period of one year from the date of retirement irrespective of finalisation of pension. It is also submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has not made any application asking for commutation of pension within one year, therefore, he is not entitled for commutation of pension. 7. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that he is not pressing the relief regarding commutation of pension. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the payments were made to the petitioner after his deemed reinstatement; however, there was some delay in payment of the dues on account of unavoidable reasons and similarly, payment on account of leave encashment was also made with some delay on account of administrative reasons. The petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payments. 9. This Court, having gone through the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly Section 7(3)(a), finds it apt to refer to the said provision, which reads as follows:- “Section: 7 Determination of the amount of gratuity. (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (4 of 8) [CW-850/2023] writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount gratuity so determined. (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub- section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.” 10. From the reading of the above quoted provision, it is clear that the employer is required to pay all the dues within a period of 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period of 30 days, the employer is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act of 1972. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). The relevant Rule [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (5 of 8) [CW-850/2023] relating to payment of gratuity is sub-rule 1(c) and sub-rule 2 which reads hereunder:- 90. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending (1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub rule (4) of Rule 7, the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, shall authorise the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. Provided that in cases where pension case could not be prepared finally for one or the other reason the appointing authority shall sanction provisional pension in Form 33 after following procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) of Rule 86 and send the case to the Director, Pension for issue of Provisional Pension Payment Order till the Departmental Enquiry is finalised. (b) The provisional pension shall be authorised by the Director, Pension Department, during the period commencing from the date of retirement upto and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon: Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses(i) and (ii) of Rule 14 of the said Rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (6 of 8) [CW-850/2023] (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period. 12. Going by the said Rules, no gratuity is required to be paid to the Government servant in a case where departmental proceedings have been instituted under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’) or a criminal case involving moral turpitude or offences relating to his official duty is pending. However, if departmental proceedings are pending for imposition of punishment under Rule 17(i) & (ii), payment of gratuity can be authorised. 13. In the present case, a criminal case involving moral turpitude is said to have been pending against the petitioner, therefore, by invoking Rule 90(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, 1996, the respondents have rightly not paid the gratuity pending finality of the criminal case. 14. So far as the leave encashment is concerned, both the learned counsel have failed to bring to the notice of this Court, whether the leave encashment can be postponed on account of similar circumstances existing for deferment of final pension or gratuity. Therefore, the petitioner is at least entitled to the payment of leave encashment immediately after his deemed reinstatement basing on the acquittal by the criminal court. [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (7 of 8) [CW-850/2023] There is an inordinate delay of more than two years. This inordinate delay is being tried to be justified with administrative reasons. 15. The administrative reason cannot be arbitrary when the retiral benefits and compliance of entitlement are to be done within the time fixed under the Pension Rule. Even the Pension Rules provide for payment of interest if the pension is not settled within a period of 60 days. Such provision is required to be taken into account for payment of interest. The petitioner is entitled for interest for such period. The Gratuity Act provides for grant of some interest for delay in payment. The Pension Rules also entitled to grant of interest @ 9% per annum. 16. In the above background, the present writ petition is disposed of as follows:- (i) the claim of the petitioner regarding commutation of the pension is dismissed as withdrawn; (ii) the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on all the delayed payments, like gratuity, leave encashment etc. for the relevant period to be computed by the respondents; (iii) the respondents are directed to pay 9% interest per annum on the quantified gratuity and leave encashment which were paid on 07.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 respectively and such interest shall be paid from the above dates of payment of such amount till the date of payment and the same shall be paid within a period of two months. [2026:RJ-JP:17803] (8 of 8) [CW-850/2023] 17. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 175-Mohan/-