1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5235/2001. : : J.K.Rastogi Vs. State of Rajasthan. : : Date of Order 27.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.N.S.Chauhan for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to release terminal benefits of the petitioner including pension, gratuity, leave encasement etc with all consequential benefits and pay him all these benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner while serving the respondents on the post of Principal, Government College retired on 31.7.2001. Shri N.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while the petitioner in service the respondents issued order dated 4.11.2000 whereby the date of superannuation of as many as 79 employees were notified 2 and the name of the petitioner was also found place at serial No.46. However in the note given below in the said order, it was indicated that no departmental enquiry/complaint/FIR was under consideration except in the case of the five employees including the petitioner. The petitioner immediately asked the respondents what was pending against him but nothing has been disclosed. No charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner not even a notice was given. The particulars/details as to on what basis disciplinary enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner, were never formulated. In this manner, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.7.2001. When retiral benefits was not paid to the petitioner he approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents have issued PPO and GPO on 24.9.2003 and accordingly paid the retiral benefits with delay of 14 months on 30.11.2002. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that matter took some time in the scrutiny of papers and when disciplinary case against the petitioner was initiated, ultimately the proposal was finalised request was sent to the Governor of the State for according permissions to initiate 3 against the petitioner disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The Governor of the State however declined to grant sanction and, therefore, ultimately PPO and GPO were issued and payments were made. Delay of 14 months was thus not without any reason and it was attributable to the petitioner only. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that the petitioner is justified in raising the grievance about the delay because when the respondent after passing of the order dated 4.11.2000 were cognizant of the fact that the petitioner was going to retire on 31.7.2001 and a period of 8 months were available to them, within which they could process and issue charge-sheet to him. But no steps were taken so much so not even a notice on the ground on which the petitioner was sought to be proceeded against was given. The Governor of State also declined to accord the permission for initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement presumably because no such gravity was found and that was because the incident was of four years older than the retirement of the petitioner. In view of the specific bar in Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, 4 even otherwise, such sanction could not have been accorded. In the circumstances, the sending of request to the Governor itself was misconceived. The respondent were unjustified in delaying the matter for so long as they allowed more than four years to pass even when the petitioner was still in service and thereafter more than 18 months, in making the payment from the date of his retirement. Since the payment of retiral dues have already been made to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is held entitled to receive interest @ 9% per anuum in terms of Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 for the period of delay, excluding the initial period of 60 days, that was caused in making the payment. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.31.