IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4359/95 Shri Radheyshyam Tripathi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : 18/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K. Saksena for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition which was filed way back on 2.8.1995, the petitioner has prayed for twin reliefs. The first prayer is that absence of petitioner for 39 days from 2.7.87 to 9.9.87 should be counted for the purpose of payment of pension and its commutation with other consequential benefits and the second prayer is that the respondents should be directed to pay to him interest for the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer. On 23.7.87 he was transferred from Beawar to Jalore by order of the respondents. The petitioner filed a civil suit in which status quo order was passed by Civil Court on 23.7.1987 which was ultimately vacated on 7.9.1987. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order of the Munsif Magistrate, Beawar before Additional District Judge, Beawar. The learned Additional District Judge, Beawar while deciding the appeal vide order dated 21.12.1989 observed that no adverse inference shall be drawn against the petitioner for the period during which status quo order was operative. Ultimately, the petitioner joined at the place of transfer on 10.9.1987, so the entire period of 39 days, could not be treated as absence from duty. It was argued that even otherwise the petitioner was entitled to joining period of 10 days and the action of the respondents in sanctioning his leave may therefore be cancelled because the learned Additional District Judge in his order clearly mentioned that no adverse inference shall be drawn against the petitioner for the aforesaid period. Learned counsel argued that in any case, the petitioner was due to retire on 30.9.1987 even then the respondents denied the actual benefits of pension and other retiral dues which was granted to him on 11.7.1983. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the aforesaid. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the absence of the petitioner was regularised by grant of leave and that the aforesaid period could not be treated as spent on duty because the status quo order by itself does not mean that the operation of the order was stayed. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material on record. The respondents have not chosen to file reply to the writ petition, but nevertheless it is evident from the order of trial court that an injunction suit was indeed filed by the petitioner in which status quo order was passed but in the case of transfer specially where the employee has been relieved, status quo does not affect the order of transfer. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous because in the meantime the petitioner upon attaining the age of superannuation stood retired on 30.9.1987. The appellate court observed that for the period of delay in joining at the transferred place by the petitioner, unless the appellate court decides on the basis of evidence that the petitioner stood relieved and then did not join, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner had yet not been relieved or that he was still not continued. The period of such absence was therefore liable to be regularised by grant of leave. On that aspect, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However the respondents have also not contested the writ petition on merits, nor given any justification as to why payment of retiral dues was delayed by almost two years when the petitioner retired on 30.9.1987. The petitioner for this period of delay is certainly entitled to interest. The writ petition is therefore allowed in part with the direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest @ 6% per annum for the aforesaid period of delay. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/