CW2934/2007 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2934/2007 P. Ishwar Dutt Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 26.11.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri V.K. Mathur, Counsel for petitioner Shri B.S. Rajawat, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Petitioner has filed this petition with prayer that for delay of one year caused in payment of retiral benefits to him, he should be paid interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is contended that petitioner retired from government service as Office Assistant on 31.05.2003, whereas his retiral benefits were paid as back as on 05.04.2004 and that too after putting much efforts by him. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which provides that if payment of retiral benefits has been authorized after 60 days from date when its payment became due, and it is established that delay in payment was not on account of failure on part of government servant in compliance of procedure laid down, interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date retiral benefits become due would be payable till CW2934/2007 // 2 // end of month preceding month in which retiral benefits are authorized. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed writ petitiion and submitted that delay in payment of retiral benefits to petitioner occurred due to non- completion of certain procedural requirements by him. Learned counsel submitted that despite repeated letters, he did not produce 'no dues certificate' from concerned institutions in respect of any loan taken by him so that it can be certified that there is no due against him. In this process the delay occasioned. Learned counsel for petitioner rejoined and submitted that nothing was due against petitioner and that he did not take any loan from any instiuttion. Having regard to facts of this case, I do not find any justification in delay of one year caused in payment of retiral dues to petitioner. Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 grants 60 days grace period from date when payment of retiral dues became due and therefore for that period petitioner would not be entitled to interest but for subsequent period after expiry of 60 days he would be entitled for interest at rate of 9% per annum. In result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and same is hereby allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for interest at rate of 9% per annum for delayed period in making payment of CW2934/2007 // 3 // retiral dues to petitioner excluding period of 60 days as per Rule 89 of Rules of 1996. Payment shall be made to petitioner within a period of three months from date a copy of this order is produced before respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//