1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7138/02 Mool Chand Meena vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 18/3/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Dayanand Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Dharmendra Pareek for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who retired from the services of the respondent-State as Assistant on 31.3.1999 has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2002 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to immediately make his pay fixation under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1996 and finalise his pay and pay him all the arrears together with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Contention of the petitioner is that he after his retirement, has not been paid gratuity, nor his pay fixation in 1976, 1981 and 1989 have been made, nor as he been paid the benefits of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1996. The respondents have even not made payment of his gratuity and they have also 2 not finalised his pension. The petitioner had to serve a notice for demand of justice and when nothing was done, he filed the writ petition. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have submitted that the petitioner has been granted benefits of gratuity in the sum of Rs.81,675/- and he has also been sanctioned provisional pension. Copy of GPO is on record. He has been granted the benefits of revised Pay Scale of 1976, 1981 and 1989 and revised increments have also been sanctioned to him. It has been contended that the respondents never denied the payment of gratuity and pension to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the notice sent to the advocate of the petitioner and contended that the delay occurred because petitioner himself has retained the service book from 16.3.2000 to 14.12.2000. It has been contended that the matter with regard to granting benefits of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1996 is under process and so soon it is finalised, the pension papers of the petitioner shall be finalised. 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the respondents in reply to the writ petition have not clarified as to for what reason, the petitioner was not granted the revised pay scale of 1976, 1981, 1989 and 1996 when it was due to be paid to him. It appears even after the petitioner retired on 31.3.1999, the respondents proceeded at a very slow pace in fianlising the pension case, so much so that reply to the writ petition was filed in the year 2003. Still they were contending that benefits of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1996 could not be granted to the petitioner as the matter was under process. The period of two months for which it is alleged that petitioner has retained his service book and personal file cannot explain the entire delay and respondents have not specifically pointed out as to what was required of the petitioner that he did not do, which may be taken as a reason for delay attributed to him. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with direction to the respondents to 4 finalise pension case of the petitioner in pursuance of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1996 and also pay to him arrears of revised pension and petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89, ignoring the period of initial 60 days for the period of delay in all these payments. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/