IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5478/04 M.P. Mittal vs. Chief Engineer, PHED Date of order : 3/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Deepak Mehta for the petitioner. Shri S.L. Meena, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed with the grievance that the respondents so far have not paid the benefits of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of salary and differential payment of salary of the suspension period and benefit of fixation and also the pension to the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum on such payments for the period of delay. Shri Deepak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.10.2001 on account of his involvement in an anti corruption case and while he was under suspension he retired from service on 30.6.2003. It was thereafter that the criminal court acquitted him from the charges vide judgment dated 21.5.2004. Though the petitioner has been paid all other benefits, but his leave encashment for 26 and a 1/2 days has not been paid so far and also he submitted five T.A. bills, out of them, payment of 3 bills has not been made so far. Learned counsel argued that he was entitled to be paid the computation of pension and the gratuity from 1.7.2003 whereas it was actually paid to him on 31.10.2005. In the like manner, arrears of salary was paid on 31.10.2004 and therefore for the period of delay, according to Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the petitioner should be paid interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The fact is that the substantial part of the relief that was prayed for by the petitioner has already been granted. Now according to the assertion made by the petitioner in his additional affidavit, the aforesaid claims of the petitioner have not been satisfied so far. The respondents in their counter affidavit have asserted that petitioner is entitled for 220 days of leave encashment, which has already been paid to him and now whether the petitioner is further entitled to leave encashment of 26 and a 1/2 days is a matter of enquiry. Similarly, whether there are three more pending T.A. bills of the petitioner, is also an issue which need to be examined by the respondents. In the fact of the case, the petitioner is required to make a representation to the respondents on these two issues and the respondents are directed to examine and if the petitioner is found entitled to receive such payments, make payment of the same to him within a period of three months. In case, they hold that the petitioner is not entitled to such payments, they should by a speaking order citing the reasons therefor, communicate such decision to the petitioner. In so far as the interest claimed by the petitioner on account of delayed payment is concerned, the delay in making of the retiral benefits to the petitioner has not occurred on account of any fault on the part of the respondents but it was for the reason that the petitioner involved himself in a criminal case in which eventually he was exonerated, therefore, he cannot be granted any interest for such period. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/