DBSAW NO.1096/05. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1096/2005. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4136/2003. Bhupendra Singh Rajvanshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 9/11/2010. PRESENT HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Bhargava for the appellant. Shri Kanishk Gupta on behalf of Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ****** Per Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq This special appeal has been filed by appellant-Bhupendra Singh Rajvanshi against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24/8/2005 by which, writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. In the writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay him interest @18% per annum on the delayed payment of his retiral dues and also directing them to give him promotion on the post of Chief Engineer on the basis of DBSAW NO.1096/05. 2 recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25/1/1989 w.e.f. 1988-89. It appears however that petitioner did not press the second prayer before the learned Single Judge. Writ petition as far as first prayer is concerned, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this special appeal. Shri A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law in denying interest to the appellant on the premise that writ petition suffered from delay and latches as it was filed with the delay of three years. Learned counsel argued that in fact, writ petition was filed for payment of retiral dues withheld by the respondents because the departmental enquiry which was initiated against him in the year 1986 was pending. Petitioner retired from service as Additional Chief Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/1/1989. Disciplinary proceedings remained pending for quite some time and was finally dropped vide order of the Government dated 30/11/2000 because Government were of the opinion that case was not found fit to be proceeded against the appellant, who was a retired Government servant as per Rule 7 of the DBSAW NO.1096/05. 3 Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter be referred as “Rules of 1996”). However, payment of retiral dues was made to the petitioner on 10/2/2003 and it was thereafter that the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents for making payment of interest to him also. But when the same was not paid, petitioner filed writ petition on 9/7/2003. Learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for the appellant in this connection has referred to Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 to argue that earlier, Government servant was entitled to interest @12% p.a. on delayed payment of retiral dues but vide subsequent notification issued on 29/7/2004, rate of interest @12% p.a. was reduced to 9% p.a. to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues. Per contra, Ms.Kanishka Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General has opposed the appeal and argued that learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition because the retirement of the appellant took DBSAW NO.1096/05. 4 place on 31/1/1989 and departmental proceedings were dropped vide order dated 30/11/2000. If appellant was aggrieved of denial interest on delayed payment of his retiral dues, he should have immediately approached the Court for redressal of his grievance. He took three years in doing so, therefore writ petition was rightly rejected for reasons of delay and latches. Even otherwise, appellant cannot be held entitled to interest as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 because the delay was not attributable to respondents but was owing to the fact that appellant was facing departmental proceedings. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record as well as the impugned-order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24/8/2005, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Single Judge on the question of delay and latches because in our view, the cause of action for the petitioner to file the writ petition for payment of interest arose when he was finally paid retiral dues on 10/2/2003. Because it was then that he came to know that payment of interest has not been paid to him despite there being specific provision in Rule 89 of the Rules DBSAW NO.1096/05. 5 of 1996 in this regard. However, in the facts of the case, payment of interest @9% p.a. is not considered proper because the delay in making payment of retiral dues was occasioned on account of pendency of departmental proceedings against the petitioner but at the same time, when the Government itself came to hold that allegations against the petitioner are of supervisory negligence only, it was not a fit case for continuance of the departmental proceedings against him after his retirement in view of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, petitioner must be held entitled to interest at reasonable rate which we fix at @7% p.a. No other argument has been advanced before us. We therefore deem it proper to allow the appeal. Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed with the direction that appellant shall be entitled to interest @7% p.a. on the delayed payment of his retiral dues excluding the period of sixty days from the date of his retirement i.e. 31/1/1989 till such payment is actually made. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (ARUN MISHRA), Acting CJ. anil