1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8906/04 Hardwari Lal Mathur vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 23/9/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri H.C. Saini for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Naka Guard in the Municipality, Udaipur Vati, District Jhunjhunu and was subsequently upon being declared surplus was transferred to Panchayati Raj Department where he was absorbed as Gram Sevak vide order dated 20.3.2000. Petitioner then applied for and was granted voluntary retirement with effect from 21.10.2002. The respondents have however not finalised his pension case and not paid to him gratuity and other retiral benefits. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for grant of all such benefits together with interest @ 18% per annum. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition have come out with the plea 2 that such of the surplus employees of the Local Bodies who were transferred to Panchayat Samities, their amount of pension and gratuity has been sanctioned and transferred to Nagar Palika, Udaipur Vati, Jhunjhunu. There was some procedural delay due to verification of the service of the petitioner and so soon it will be verified, the amount will be released. The respondents have placed on record communication dated 11.4.2008 which was addressed by Director Pension to Director Local Bodies in which it has been conveyed that for two employees of Municipal Board Udaipur vati, who were declared surplus and were absorbed in Panchayati Raj institutions, the Director Local Bodies has transferred only a sum of Rs.8,19,880/- as capitalised value towards pension fund and whereas the required amount was Rs.9,29,066/- and in this manner there was shortage of Rs.1,09,186. Even if what is contended by the respondents is accepted, that it appears then it was an inter se matter between two departments of the government. This Court by its order dated 14.7.2006 directed the 3 respondents to grant to the petitioner provisional pension which has been sanctioned to him. So far nothing has been reported by the respondents whether the pension case of the petitioner has been finalised and payment of retiral dues made, which is thus entirely attributable to the respondents themselves. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and pay to him all his retiral dues such as gratuity and other retiral benefits together with interest @ 12% per annum as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1989 excluding the period of initial 60 days from the date of retirement of the petitioner. He shall be entitled to the interest on all his arrears for subsequent period of delay. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of the judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/