1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1800/2003 Narpat Singh Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 22/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma for the petitioner. Dr. M.S. Kachawa, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition was filed way back in the year 2003 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay to him the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983, 1987, 1989 and 1998 and also grant him annual grade increments from time to time and make payment of his salary on that basis since 13.6.1990 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2000 and compute his retiral benefits including GPF, State Insurance, leave encashment, commutation, gratuity, pension and other benefits and pay the same together with interest 18% per annum. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was at the relevant time working as Ranger at Neem Ka Thana. From where, he was transferred to Forest Division, Kota by order dated 22.9.1989. He was posted at Range, Sultanpur, where he submitted his joining. Subsequently, by order dated 27.2.1991, petitioner was again 2 transferred to Range Kishangarh under Forest Division, Ajmer. One Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj was posted vice petitioner. Petitioner was relieved and joined at Kishangarh, but ultimately his order of transfer dated 27.2.1991 was cancelled by order dated 3.2.1992 and thus the petitioner was posted back at Range Sultanpur. Petitioner on account of the certain fact and for certain period when the petitioner was seriously ill, could not attend duties. He had to remain on leave and submitted leave application duly supported by medical certificate. He was served with a charge sheet for willful absence of 898 days. In enquiry, however, charges against him were not found proved. The disciplinary authority by order dated 4.12.01 exonerated the petitioner accepting the report of the enquiry. In the meantime, petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2000. He requested the authorities to finalise his pension case and grant him benefits of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983, 1987, 1989 and 1998 and increments during the period. The respondents arbitrary prepared his pension case by calculating minimum of the pay scale without giving any benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules. Petitioner had to therefore approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3 Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority while exonerating the petitioner had also directed in his order dated 4.12.01 that the absence of the petitioner shall be regularised by grant of leave of the kind due. Pursuant to that order, however, the consequential order of sanction of leave was issued belatedly on 17.11.2004; even then, the petitioner was not paid those benefits. Dr. M.S. Kachawa, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that by various letters / telegrams, petitioner was requested to provide the particulars of his family members and also photograph of his wife, but he did not complete those formalities by now, which delayed the case. Learned counsel submits that the dues of the petitioner may have been paid because in between number of years have gone by. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that so far petitioner has not been paid all those dues. He argued that from the date when the petitioner was exonerated i.e. 4.12.2001, there was no justification with the respondents not to pay his retiral dues. Petitioner should be paid interest for the delay that has occasioned in making payment, if any such payment has been made, at the rate of 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1998. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that when the disciplinary authority has by its order dated 4.12.2001 decided to exonerate the petitioner from the charge of willful absence and as per same order also directed that the period of alleged absence shall be regularised by grant of leave of the kind due, there was no reason why the order sanctioning leave was issued with the delay of four years on 17.11.2004. In any case, the leave having been granted, there was no impediment for grant of benefit of various Revised Pay Scale Rules to the petitioner and also granting him increments. The respondents have not shown any reason why those benefits would not be payable to the petitioner. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner did not cooperate in early finalising of pension case. Assertion that the various letters were addressed to the petitioner asking him to complete the formalities and furnishing the photograph of his wife, is vague because the respondents have not given any date of such letters so as to ascertain as to when firstly they sent such letters to the petitioner and on that basis only that the delay on the part of the petitioner in completing the formalities can be ascertained. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner benefit 5 of Revised Pay Scale Rules and also increments for the entire intervening period till the date of his retirement and on that basis compute his retiral benefits viz. GPF, State Insurance, leave encashment, computation, gratuity, pension and other consequential benefits, if such benefits have not already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% in terms of Rule 89, supra from the date, petitioner was exonerated i.e. 4.12.2001, till the actual payment is made. 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/-