1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4850/1997 Ram Chander Sharma vs. Hindustan Copper Limited & Ors. Date of order : 23/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Arora for the petitioner. Shri R.A. Sugandha for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 5.4.1997 by which the petitioner was taken as voluntarily retired, be set aside in lieu of his letter of request dated 27.3.1997 withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement dated 5.1.1997 and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. In alternative, another prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to pay all pensionary benefits and other benefits due to petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents though accepted the application of the petitioner on 18.3.1997, but before 2 that order could be conveyed to him, he submitted an application on 27.3.1997 withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement, yet the respondents illegally on 5.4.1997 relieved him from service. Learned counsel submitted that the retiral dues of the petitioner, which the respondents allegedly deposited in his account were actually credited to his account in December, 1997 and the pension was started being paid from the year 2002. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has sent the letter dated 27.3.1997 by registered post through the post office, a presumption therefore should arise as to the service of the letter upon the respondents. Shri R.A. Sugandh, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that no such letter of request dated 27.3.1997 withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement dated 5.1.1997 was ever received by the respondents and when such application was not received, there was no question of taking any action thereupon. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents received the notice of the writ 3 petition only in 2005 and in that very year, they filed reply and disputed this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that he has made efforts with the post office and also approached them under the Right to Information Act, but so far he has not been provided with the details of service of that letter, because that record is weeded out by the post office. In the fact situation that has arisen in the present case, the fact that the letter allegedly sent by the petitioner to the respondents on 27.3.1997, whether the letter was served or not, cannot be taken as proved, particularly when respondents themselves disputed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was initially dismissed for want of per-emptory order and was restored in the year 2005 and thereafter notice was served to the respondents. That delay has occasioned due to the fault of the petitioner. However, the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest on the dues and the pension arrears on account of delay is justified. 4 The writ petition is partly accepted only on that aspect in view of the alternative prayer of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay in grant of retiral dues and pension from the date it became due and till it was paid to him/deposited in his account. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/