CW 1652/04 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1- Civil Writ Petition No.1652/2004 Lal Chand Gupta Versus State & (2) Ors. 2- Civil Writ Petition No.4573/2003 Mahendra K Chandok Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 18/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Akhil Simlote, for petitioners Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for respondents. At joint request, since both the petitions involve identical controversy, hence are being disposed of together. These petitions have been filed by petitioners who were compulsorily retired by respondents in exercise of powers U/r 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”) but have been arbitrarily denied their claim of leave encashment which was one of terminal benefits U/r 91-B of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951 (“R.S.R.”). However, petitioners have challenged orders of their compulsory retirement and further claiming other reliefs too, but in course of arguments, on instructions, their Counsel confined the relief only to the extent of one of terminal benefits viz., leave encashment, which has not been paid on the premise of they being compulsorily retired. CW 1652/04 //2// Counsel for petitioners submits that U/r 91-B of RSR, no distinction has been made with regard to voluntary or compulsory retirement in public interest. Both the petitioners have been compulsorily retired in exercise of powers U/r 53 (1) of Rules, 1996 and not as a measure of penalty under CCA Rules; as such are entitled for leave encashment U/r 91-B of RSR as observed by Division Bench of this Court in Deen Dayal Khunteta Vs. State (1995(2) WLC (Raj) 22) and Sukhram Jatav Vs. State (2004 (2) WLC (Raj.) 262) – taking assistance whereof, Counsel submits that since petitioners have been deprived of their legitimate claim of leave encashment being arbitrarily withheld without any authority of law, they are further entitled for interest @ 9% per annum, which State Govt. at their own introduced in R.89 of Pension Rules, 1996. Counsel for respondents submits that petitioners being compulsorily retired are not entitled for terminal benefits as claimed herein. Division Bench of this Court in Deen Dayal Vs. State (supra) has examined distinction between retirement ordered U/r 244(1) & R.244(2) of RSR which are analogous in amended R.53 of Pension Rules, 1996. This Court observed ad infra: “If Rule 91-B provides for cash CW 1652/04 //3// payment in lieu of un-utilised privilege leave due on the date of retirement to the employee covered under Rule 244(1) then why should it be denied to those employees who retired under sub-rule (2) of Rules 244 of the Rules. The object of providing cash payment of un-utilised leave is that the government servant who retired from service may have some cash in his hand to arrange his affairs after retirement.” (para 15) “Petitioner, though, compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) is also entitled to the benefits contained under Rule 91(b) giving benefit to the employees who sought voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the Rules.” (para 16) In Sukhram Jatav Vs. State (supra), it has been finally held that even those who retired prior to enforcement of amendment notification, they too are entitled for encashment with regard to un- utilised leave and even with regard to person compulsorily retired. Counsel for respondents does also not dispute about controversy being decided vide judgments (supra). However, in instant case, indisputably both the petitioners have been compulsorily retired in exercise of powers U/r 53(1) of Rules, 1996 in public interest and not as a measure of penalty under CCA Rules; accordingly they are CW 1652/04 //4// covered U/r 91-B of RSR for grant of terminal benefits particularly leave encashment, which certainly has been withheld by respondents without authority of law; and to meet out such contingency Rule making authority has considered to grant interest for such amount payable to retired person U/r 89 of Pension Rules, 1996; In the light of judgment (supra), writ petitions stand allowed. Respondents are directed to release payment of leave encashment for un- utilised leave of petitioners as on his date of retirement, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its accrual till actual payment. All exercise be completed to comply with directions (supra) within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/1652CW04-1809lvncsh.doc