1 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 695/2007 Durga Das v. State of Rajasthan & anr. Date of order : 14.08.2007 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.M.PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Girish Sankhla, for the appellant (PER HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.M.PANCHAL) The instant appeal filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment dated May 29, 2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 4403/2004 by which the prayers made by the appellant to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount of retiral benefits as well as to direct them to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and sufferings, are rejected. The appellant was employed as Teacher Grade III with the respondent no.1. He applied for voluntary retirement from service. That application was accepted by the respondent no.1 on November 14, 2002 retiring him from service with effect from January 9, 2003. 2 On retirement from service he was entitled to retiral benefits. According to him retiral benefits were not given to him. He therefore, preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 6154/2003 seeking a direction against the respondents to pay retiral benefits to him. The said petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on November 3, 2003 in the following terms : “The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been paid retiral benefits. The instant writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation Annexure – 7 dt. 2.9.2003 without issuing notice to them. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to decide the representation Annexure – 7 dt. 2.9.2003 filed by the petitioner through his counsel within a period of two months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. With the said direction/observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. sd/ - (H.R.PANWAR),J” The grievance of the appellant was that he was paid retiral benefits on November 24, 2003 and was therefore, entitled to interest thereon. Under the circumstances, the appellant filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 4403/2004 and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by order dated May 29, 2007 giving rise to the instant appeal. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 3 considered the documents forming part of the petition. The plea that delay in payment of retiral benefits was attributable to administrative lapse and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to interest as provided in Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 has no substance. So also, the contention that in view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ratan Lal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & ors., (1998 (1) WLC 264) the appellant should have been awarded interest, cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that the respondents had filed reply to the petition. In para 3 it was pointed out that after grant of voluntary retirement to the appellant he was asked to furnish the necessary information such as list of names of his family members, joint photos etc. and after receipt of the same the concerned Block elementary Education Officer had sent the papers to the Pension Department on February 16, 2003. It was further pointed out in the reply that the Pension Department had raised some objections about the 'Pay step up' and sought other necessary information entered in the service book by the Department which was sent to the Pension Department and the Pension Department had finalised the pension to be paid to the appellant on November 12, 2003. What was pointed out by filing the reply was that the pension case of the appellant was finalised by 4 the Joint Director, pension and the Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur on November 12, 2003 after which retiral benefits were paid to the appellant. By filing the reply it was pointed out that there was some delay on account of failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the procedure laid down in the Rules and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to interest as claimed in the petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in making payment of retiral benefits was neither due to administrative lapse nor intentional one. The record does not indicate that delay was caused because of negligence or due to extraneous consideration. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing prayers claimed by the appellant in the petition. In Dr. Ratan Lal Mathur (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has laid down the procedure to be followed by the Department concerned while finalising retiral benefits to be paid to an employee. The record does not indicate that the procedure prescribed by the Division Bench was flouted by the respondents. Under the circumstances, the principle laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. On re-appreciation of evidence this Court finds that no case is made out by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the judgment impugned in 5 the appeal. Therefore, the appeal which lacks merit deserves to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. (BHANWAROO KHAN )J. (J.M.PANCHAL), ACTG. C.J. mathur/