1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.405/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ram Kumar) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.10.2007 HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. Mr.O.P.Boob, G.A., for the State. Mr.B.S. Sidhu, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated 26.04.2006. The plaintiff claimed the interest on the belated payment of gratuity and Commutation of pension amounting to Rs. 362,505/-, which was paid to him as retiral benefits on 02.05.2002. The plaintiff claimed interest thereon @ of 12% per annum, which was awarded by the trial Court amounting to Rs. 87,020.40. 3. The only contention raised by the appellant-State before this Court is that prior to the retirement of the plaintiff on 31.05.2000 on 16.05.2000, a charge-sheet was served on the plaintiff and since, an inquiry was pending against him and he was exonerated from the said inquiry only on 13.03.2005, there 2/3 was sufficient reason and cause behind the delay in payment of the retiral benefits to the plaintiff on 02.05.2002. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-State has failed to point out any statutory provision in the relevant rules, which enables the State to withhold the payment of retiral benefits merely on the ground of pendency of inquiry against an employee and even after exoneration in such inquiry that no interest would be payable on delayed payment of retiral benefits in the form of gratuity and commutation of pension etc. 5. The payment of interest is the compensation to the person concerned as the money due to him has been retained by the State without any valid time or reason. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was exonerated in the departmental inquiry as no chareges were found to be made out against him and therefore, the delay in payment of the retiral benefits will be considered without any valid reason. Payment of interest for such delay in the payment of gratuity and commutation of pension is the right accrued to the respondent – plaintiff in this regard and the appellant- State cannot deny that. 6. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the 3/3 respondent-plaintiff . The appeal of the State is wholly devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI) J. preety ITEM NO.