High CourtsSingle Bench

Om Prakash vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 16 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 RAJ CK 0037

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 6250/2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 375 words

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The only prayer made in the present petition filed by the petitioner on 31.5.2008 is that for the delay in payment of retiral dues, no interest has been paid to him u/s 89 of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kailash Khatri submitted that even though the respondents have agreed that there was no fault on the part of the present petitioner in such delay and it was on account of administrative reasons that such delay in payment of retiral dues like, gratuity, leave encashment etc. was there, no interest has bene paid to him. The relevant part of the office note of the respondent-Department produced by the petitioner as Annex. 10 is quoted below for ready reference:-

89.

Interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits:

If the payment of retiral benefits has been authorized after 60 days from the date when its payment became due, and it is established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this chapter or elsewhere in these rules, interest @9% per annum from the date retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month of proceeding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorized.

3.

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the delay was caused by the Pension Department and not by the Commercial Taxes Department.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the delay on account of administrative reason as admitted by the respondents is sufficient to entitle the present petitioner for the interest as per Rule 89 quoted in the aforesaid part of the order and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of interest on the said retiral dues.

5.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of three months from today including the part of retiral benefits, if so far withheld. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.