Allowed

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2015CW/269/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired civil servant, filed a writ petition seeking relief for unpaid retiral dues, which the department subsequently released during the pendency. The court addressed the claim for interest on the delayed payment under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996, allowing the petition and directing the payment of interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum from 01.9.1997 and to calculate/pay within two months, or face 18% per annum thereafter.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 269/1999 Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

¶5

Date of order : : : : 03.2.2015

¶6

PRESENT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶7

Mr. Varun Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati, for the respondent/s.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming reliefs of his retiral dues. The petitioner was relieved from service on 01.9.1997 and despite several representations made to the Department, retiral dues other then the provident Fund and leave encashment were not released to him.

¶9

Faced with this situation, the present writ petition was filed in the year 1999 claiming for release of his retiral dues.

¶10

During the pendency of the writ petition, the department released all the retiral dues payable to

¶11

¶12

him. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules of 1996').

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Surendra Mohan Saxena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in RLR 2000 Vol.2 182 to contend that he would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum for the period the dues were withheld.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the resopndents submits that all the dues as payable to the petitioner were released by the Department of Education on 30.7.1999. It is argued that no interest will be payble to him because the said retiral dues were released as soon as possible. It is further contended that the delay in releasing the payment was neither deliberate nor intentional and it is only on account of the procedure involved in calculating the dues that the delay occurred.

¶15

¶16

My attention has been drawn to the judgment reported in Surendra Mohan's case (supra). In that case, the government servant had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1995, and despite several representations, his retiral dues were not settled in time. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a writ petition clamining pensionary benefits along with the interest thereupon. During the pendency of that writ petition, the petitioner was paid all his dues and the only question that remained was with regard to interest on delayed payment. The learned Division Bench held that government servant would be entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment for his retiral dues.

¶17

Disallowing the claim of interest @ 12% and placing reliance upon the said judgment, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner. The interest computed is as per Rule 89 itself. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay interest @ 9% to the petitioner calculating the same from the date it became payable i.e. 01.9.1997. The respondents herein are directed to calculate the interest payable to the petitioner within a period of two

¶18

¶19

months form today and thereafter release the said payment to the petitioner within a month thereafter, failing which, he shall be entitled to claim @ 18% per annum from the date of his retirement till the actual disbursement of the said amount.

¶20

With the above noted observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.

¶21

( JAISHREE THAKUR), J.

¶22

ns.

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Raj Singh Meena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tara Chand Manth Vs State and Ors.

Lal Singh Vs State and Ors.