1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4455/2007. (DR. RAMESH CHANDRA MATHURVS. VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 24.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar for the respondents. While holding the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pali, the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.03.1998. No retiral benefits were given to him due to non- availability of No Objection Certificate. Relevant to note here is that after making efforts by the petitioner, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pali issued a No Objection Certificate on 25.09.2004 stating therein that on 31.03.1999 – the day on which the petitioner retired from service, no amount for goods of the government were due against the petitioner, however, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan by another communication dated 04.09.2004 noted that a Preliminary Enquiry No.74/02 was under contemplation. On filing the instant petition for writ by the petitioner, the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan clarified on 20.08.2007 that no Preliminary Enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Subsequently thereof, the respondents filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that the State Government on 2 28.08.2007 issued the certificate regarding no dues and non pendency of any enquiry against the petitioner. After receiving the said letter the pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Joint Director, Department of Pension, Jodhpur vide letter number 9672 dated 26.10.2007. In pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 26.10.2007, the Joint Director, Department of Pension, Jodhpur issued PPO No.40061. In view of the factual position referred above, it is not in dispute that the post retiral benefits have now been released to the petitioner but i.e. after a lapse of more than 8 years from the actual date of retirement. This Court in the case of Pukh Raj Singhi vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in 2005 (9) RDD 3616 (Raj) dealing with the issue relating to grant of interest on delayed payment of pension held as follows: “There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner became entitled to get pensionary benefits for the period he remained in services of State i.e. the period commencing from 18.8.1941 to 16.11.1962 and this Court by judgment dated 13.10.2000 directed the State to make the actual payment of arrears from the date of filing the writ petition (SBCWP No.3946/94) i.e. 16.8.1994. The amount of arrears was 3 required to be paid by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of judgment, meaning thereby the compliance was required to be made on or before 13.12.2000. The respondents delayed the payment of the said amount due to pendency of litigation. May it be a valid reason for not making the payment of arrears to the petitioner within the period fixed under the judgment dated 13.10.2000 but the resultant position is that a huge movable property of the petitioner was retained by the respondents for a period of more than ten years i.e. from the date the petitioner became entitled for the same i.e. 16.8.1994 to 9.9.2004. Had that amount would have been paid in time the petitioner could have used the same or could have earned interest thereon, which is now a known mode of income for a retired government servant. The respondents kept all this property of the petitioner with them and deprived him from his income. In place of the petitioner the mighty State has earned interest against the said movable property. In event the respondents be permitted to keep the interest earned with them then the same shall be nothing but to deprivation of the own property to the petitioner by the respondents without having authority of law and the same shall be in violation of provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In view of it the 4 petitioner is entitled for getting the interest earned over the arrears paid to him on 9.9.2004 determining the same from 16.8.1994, the date from which this Court directed the respondents to determine the arrears of pension and to pay the same to him.” In the instant matter too, the delay in payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner is purely because of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest upon the delayed payment of the retiral benefits. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of interest to the petitioner @ 10% per annum against the arrears accrued and paid to him on 07.11.2007. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled for interest only from the date the enquiry against him was concluded i.e. from 04.09.2004. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/