Jamnalal Saraswat vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—The petitioner was appointed as teacher in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan on 3.7.1963 and was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1998. Despite retirement of the petitioner in the year 1998, his pension case was not decided on the ground that STC certificate obtained by him was not valid one. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 383/1999 which came to be allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.9.2002. This Court, while allowing the said writ petition, has observed as under:-

Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed and hence the same is hereby allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get annual increments and consequential fixations from time to time until the date of his retirement and also entitled to get all the consequential benefits and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to finalize the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order and send the necessary papers to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 is directed to make the payments of all the benefits to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the necessary papers from the respondents No. 1 to 4. The petitioner is also entitled for the costs.

In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, petitioner''s pay fixation was revised vide order dated 27.3.2003 and he was granted retiral benefits in the year August 2003 only.

On 12.1.2004, the petitioner moved a representation while claiming that his last pay drawn has wrongly been fixed as Rs. 8900/- whereas the same should have been fixed as Rs. 9300/-. The petitioner has also contended that the persons junior to him have been fixed at higher pay scale, whereas the petitioner has been fixed at lower pay scale. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for redressal of his grievances.

When the respondents have not decided the said representation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition while claiming that the respondents may be directed to fix the last pay drawn by the petitioner as Rs. 9500/- and his pension may be ordered to be revised in accordance with that and also prayed for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

The claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondents by way of filing reply to the writ petition and it is contended that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was done in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that so far as the claims of the petitioner regarding wrong fixation of his last pay drawn and incorrect grant of annual grade increments are concerned, the same are not tenable in view of the reply filed by the respondents wherein they have justified the fixation of his last pay drawn and the grant of increments to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was retired in the year 1998 and he was granted retiral benefits in the year 2003. The delay caused in granting the retiral benefits was due to fault of the respondents as they have not decided the pension case of the petitioner for frivolous reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this Court while deciding his earlier writ petition has specifically observed that the delay in deciding the case of retiral benefits of the petitioner has not been caused on account of his fault, but same has been caused on account of fault of the respondents and, therefore, he is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondent have not delayed the decision of retiral benefits to the petitioner intentionally, but the same was caused on account of action of the petitioner only and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest on delayed payment of pension.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 383/1999 has observed as under:-

So far as alleged delay is concerned, it was not due to fault of the petitioner, but it appears that delay was caused by the respondents by making petitioner to believe that the matter is under consideration. It was the duty of the respondents to consider and pass an appropriate order at appropriate time. The cause of action for seeking relief in such type of matters the representations, if admitted, to be under consideration is from its rejection and not from the date when the representation is made. A period of limitation extended by the State by its conduct and by acknowledging and keeping the matter pending and by specifically conveying it to the petitioner. Therefore, the delay cannot come in way of the petitioner rather the respondents are responsible for the delay causing hardship to the petitioner.

From the above observations, it is clear that the pension case of the petitioner was delayed only on account of actions of the respondents and, therefore, as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. In view of the above, this writ petition is partly allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the retiral benefits for the period running from 31.5.1998 to August, 1993 at the rate of 9% per annum. The respondents will pay the amount of interest to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of producing certified copy of this order.