1 Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4553/1999 (Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of order :: 16.01.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.M.S. Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Govt. Advocate By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent-authorities to pay his all dues as per Schedule-A annexed with the writ petition and further it is prayed that respondents may be directed to pay penal interest from the due date till the payment is made to the petitioner. According to the facts stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the Agricultural Department, Pipar City and was superannuated on 31st December, 1997. The petitioner was paid pension w.e.f. 25th September, 1998 but other due retiral benefits were not paid to him though he was retired which is 31st December, 1997. The petitioner submitted in the writ petition that the relevant papers in respect of pension and other retiral benefits were not prepared within time, whereas the department-authorities were under an obligation to prepare relevant papers before his retirement 2 Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and all retiral benefits were to be paid to him on the date of his superannuation. According to the petitioner, due to non-payment of his retiral benefits, many representations were filed by him but no payment was made by the department except pension that too on 25th September, 1998, therefore, he is entitled for direction to the respondents for payment of his retiral benefits as well as interest upon delayed payment. In this case the reply has been filed by the respondents. However, as ordered by this Court, an additional affidavit is also filed by Siddesh Chandra Purohit, Officer In-charge of the case, wherein it is stated that the due payment of State Insurance, P.F., Earned Leave and difference of wages on account of enforcement of 5th Pay Commission so also the payment of Gratuity and the amount under the head of commutation and other benefits has been paid to the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner though admitted that certain amount has been paid but submitted that the entire amount for which he is legally entitled has not been paid so far by the respondents, so also, he is entitled for interest as per Pension Rules, 1996. In this case, the petitioner is disputing that the entire amount which is still due has not been paid, therefore, I deem it fit to 3 Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. grant liberty to the petitioner to file detailed representation to the concerned authorities with regard to his due payment and apprise the respondents to the provisions of Rules of interest as provided in the Pension Rules, 1996 within a period of two months from today and upon filing the said representation, the respondents shall decide the claim of dues by a speaking order within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. If claim of the petitioner is accepted by the respondents then he shall be paid the due amount within above stipulated time and if any adverse order is passed by the respondents denying the claim then the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same by way of filing fresh writ petition. With these observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. [GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS],J. A.K. Chouhan/-