1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3715/04 Mahesh Prasad Bhatnagar vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 19/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Amit Jindal for the petitioner. Shri Aklesh Jain, Deputy Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner together with interest @ 12% per annum. Shri Amit Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Pension Directorate raised number of objections, which were all required to be explained by the respondents themselves. He has produced on record the copy of the order dated 10.6.2003 which indicate that the pay fixation order of the petitioner was not on the service book. His service from the period from 1.12.1999 to 31.12.1999 was not verified. He had not given the details of his leave, headquarter permission and joining etc. The petitioner was earlier also required to remove all these objections vide 2 letter dated 20.3.2003. It was submitted that petitioner immediately removed all the objections, but no action has been done on the part of the respondents. Shri Aklesh Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents submitted that initially the petitioner did not timely submit the pension papers and joint photograph of his own and that of his wife. The respondents had to publish in newspaper the notice when he did not respond in pursuance of the communication dated 20.3.2003. It is submitted that in 2003, number of letters were written by the respondents to petitioner to remove all these defects but he did not respond. Ultimately the payment of the retiral dues have been made to the petitioner in 2006. In view of the above facts, it is clearly evident that most of the objections which have been raised by the respondents were required to be satisfied by the petitioner. However, it do not appear that the respondents had written number of letters and eventually the respondents had to issue a public notice in the newspaper on 3 27.3.2001 requiring him to furnish the detailed particulars. Although Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1971 provides for payment of interest at the rate of 9% on expiry of 60 days from the date of retirement for the period of delay in making payment of retrial benefits, but in the present case, it appears that delay to some extent was attributable to the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay caused in making payment of retrial dues and arrears thereof. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/