1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4416/2001. : : Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 19.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.D.P.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was originally filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him retiral benefits such as pension, amount of gratuity, leave encasement and other retiral benefits. During the pendency of writ petition, all these benefits have been paid to the petitioner. Shri D.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, confined his arguments to the question of payment of interest for the period of delay caused in making payment. The petitioner who was originally appointed on 22.6.1976, was removed from service by way of penalty by Director cum Inspector General, Jail, Jaipur vide his order 2 dated 4.1.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal. The Government vide order dated 8.10.1997 allowed the aforesaid appeal in part holding that since the petitioner is completed 20 years of service and keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved against him, the penalty of removal would be disproportionate and, therefore, it was substituted by that of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even from the reply filed by the respondents, it is evident that respondents did not take any action for preparing his pension case and ensuring that retiral dues of the petitioner are paid to him in time. It was argued that pension case was prepared and sent to the Director of Pension on 31.3.2001 and thereafter when certain objections were raised by the Pension Directorate, they were over-ruled and eventually the PPO and GPO was issued belatedly on 6.7.2001 and the payment was still made thereafter. The facts aforesaid clearly show that the respondents have not shown due diligence in timely payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. While State Government has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner substituted the penalty of removal by that of compulsory retirement, there is 3 no reason why the pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Pension Directorate belatedly on 31.3.2001. The actual payment was made to the petitioner some time in the month of July, 2001 which cannot be said to be justified. In my considered view , the petitioner therefore is entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum, according to Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 for any period of delay beyond the permissible of time of 60 days. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to pay the interest to the petitioner @ 9% per annum excluding from the period of 60 days from 8.10.1997 till the actual payment was made. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.19.