1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1912/2007. ( SHIV PRASAD CHHANGANI VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 29.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. P.K. Lohra for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary for the respondents. The petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 04.08.1997, however, in response thereto, no positive action was taken by the respondents, thus, he preferred a petition for writ (SBCWP No.4032/97) before this Court seeking a direction for respondents to determine and pay retiral benefits to him. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be disposed of by this Court on 24.07.98 in following terms: “Mr. G.L. Khatri, appearing for Mr. A.K. Khatri, learned counsel for the Respondent State that this writ petition is bound to be allowed. As per statutory rules if the application for voluntarily retirement is filed, after the expiry / over of the statutory period, the employee would be deemed to have retired. 2 In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be deemed to have retired w.e.f. 04th Aug. 97. The Respondents Authorities are directed to decide his claim for retiral benefits expeditiously / preferably within 4 months from the presentation of the certified copy of the order.” In pursuant to the directions above, the respondents allowed retiral benefits to the petitioner treating the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 04.08.1997 and those were released on 16.07.1999. By way of filing an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner claimed for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. While contesting the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents averred in reply to the appeal that “a preliminary inquiry was pending against the appellant due to pendency of the inquiry voluntary resignation was rejected by the competent authority and order of the government dated 30.7.97 was communicated to the appellant.” Learned Tribunal rejected the appeal aforesaid on the count that a just reason was available with the respondents for not making payment of retiral benefits in time. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rajasthan 3 Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that admittedly no regular disciplinary enquiry was pending against the petitioner and, therefore, no just reason was available to detain retiral benefits. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service on 04.08.1997. At the time of retirement, no disciplinary action was pending against him. Subsequent thereto also, no action was taken by the respondents against the petitioner as a disciplinary measure. As a matter of fact, the respondents failed to take any action as per law, at the first instance, while taking decision relating to voluntary retirement of the petitioner and subsequently in payment of retiral benefits. This Court by the order dated 24.07.1998, directed the respondents in SBCWP No.4032/97 to decide the retiral benefits of the petitioner, but the retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner in the month of July 1999 i.e. after a lapse of about a year. The petitioner has suffered agony of non-payment of the 4 retiral benefits only because of inaction on part of the respondents. The Government of Rajasthan under a Circular dated 24.02.2001 provided certain guidelines for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits and those are as follows: a) a retiring employee would be entitled to receive simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay in the authorisation of his retiral benefits. b) In case of delay in authorisation of pension and gratuity beyond 60 days from the date of retirement, the Director, Pension shall also authorise payment of interest @ 12% per annum along with the other retiral benefits to the employee. c) The Director, Pension shall send copies of authority for payment of interest issued in favour of the pensioner to the office from which the pensioner retired. The appointing authority, and the Administrative Secretary concerned for holding preliminary enquiry to ascertain the officer(s) / official(s) prima facie responsible for causing the delay. Thereafter, the concerned Officer shall intimate disciplinary action against the delinquent 5 employees (s) under the CCA Rules and recover the amount of interest paid for the delay on the part of such employees (s) from the concerned employee(s). In the instant matter, as said above, the delay in payment of retiral benefits is caused due to inaction on part of the respondents, therefore, in view of the instructions of the Government of Rajasthan referred above, the petitioner is entitled for adequate interest upon the delayed payment of retiral benefits. The pendency of preliminary enquiry is not a valid reason to detain retiral benefits and even if, it is, then too expeditious decision is always desirable in all administrative actions. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that as a matter of fact, there was no valid reason available to the Government of Rajasthan for causing delay in making payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner is certainly entitled for receiving interest upon the delayed payment at least from the date of acceptance of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner i.e. On 24.07.98. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is quashed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner stands allowed by directing the respondents to pay 6 interest to the petitioner on his retiral benefits @ 12 % per annum from 24.07.98 up to 16.07.99. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/