CW 12991/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12991/2008 Laxmi Narayan Chauhan Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 02/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner Mr. BK Sharma, for respondent No.5. Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite petitioner having retired from service on superannuation while holding post of Accountant on 31/05/08, for one or the other reason, his retiral dues were withheld by respondents without authority of law. Petitioner initially joined service as Accounts Clerk in Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur on 01/01/1976 and was thereafter promoted as Junior Accountant vide order dt. 01/03/95 (Ann.2) and as Accountant vide order dt.21/09/04 (Ann.4) w.e.f. 25/08/2004 and while holding post of Accountant retired from service on 31/05/08 vide order dt.23/05/08 (Ann.7). Only grievance raised herein is that his retiral dues have been withheld by respondents to which he is entitled for and the delay in no manner can be attributed to him; as such he is further entitled to CW 12991/08 //2// interest over the delayed payment of retiral dues in terms of R.89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 despite service of notices. Respondent No.5 (Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur) has filed reply to the petition and their Counsel submits that clarifications were sought for by Director Local Bodies and which were met out; but as regards one of objections raised about promotion of petitioner to the post of Jr. Accountant and Accountant, which have not been regularised and in absence whereof, his retiral dues could not have been finalised by respondents. Counsel further submits that there is no delay as regards Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur and pension papers were sent to the Director Local Bodies for release of his pensionary benefits and therefore, they are not responsible for the delay, if any. I have considered contentions of Counsle for parties and examined material on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted as Jr Accountant and Accountant and while holding of post of Accountant, petitioner stood retired from service. While he was in servicde no communication was ever CW 12991/08 //3// made in regard to his promotion either on the post of Jr. Accountant or Accountant. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner was not eligible for promotion under Rules. Once petitioner has retired from service, while holding the post of Accountant, he is entitled for retiral dues admissible under law on the basis of last pay drawn of the post of Accountant on the date of retirement. That apart justification referred to by respondent-5 in the reply, even if it is taken at its face value, it was open for respondents to take appropriate action available under law while petitioner was promoted as Jr Accountant on 01/03/95 (Ann.2) and as Accountant on 21/09/04 (Ann.4) but no action was taken by respondents and after the petitioner had retired from services respondents are not justified in re-opening his promotion and in withholding retiral dues admissible to him and the State Government was under legal obligation to release the same without any delay. As per scheme of Pension Rules, 1996, retiral dues are to be paid to incumbent within sixty days from the date of retirement and if payment is made after sixty days from CW 12991/08 //4// the date of it having become due, and it is established that failure was not on the part of Government servant, he will be entitled to grant of interest @9% per annum as admissible U/r 89 of Rules, 1996. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to compute his retiral dues on the basis of last pay drawn of Accountant as admissible under law and be paid alongwith interest over delayed payment of retiral dues @9% (nine) per annum from the date of his retirement till its actual payment. All exercise to comply with aforesaid order be made within three months from the date certified copy of this order is furnished in the office of respondents. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 12991CW08Spt02-Int.doc