Allowed

Dhoomi Ram Yadav v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2023CW/1545/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee sought relief for delayed payment of pension and gratuity by Rule 189 of RSR. The Court held that while the grievance was redressed with payment, the respondent must pay interest @9% under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay interest @9% for delay in payment of retiral dues within three months.

Dhoomi Ram Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1545/2008

¶3

Dhoomi Ram Yadav Son Of Shri Narayan Ram, Age About 61 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Churi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶7

The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Directorate, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Pension, Jyoti - Nagar, Jaipur

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar for Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

03/08/2023

¶13

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶14

following prayer:

¶15

“a) It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the official respondents to release the retirial benefits to the petitioner i.e., pension, gratuity, reimbursement etc with interest at the rate of 24% per annum as per rule 189 of RSR.

¶16

b) That personal responsibility be fixed of the defaulting officer and the cost of the writ petition be quantified from the salary of the defaulting officer.

¶17

(2 of 3) [CW-1545/2008]

¶18

c) Any other order or direction, which the court deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

d) Any prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, it may be taken on record and further be quashed and set a side.”

¶20

Contents of the petition indicates that the petitioner stood retired on 07.02.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation. Inspite of passing of considerable time when retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of filing instant petition seeking appropriate directions against the respondents.

¶21

Counsel for the respondents submits that all retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 26.09.2008. Counsel submits that slight delay has occurred in making the payment due to the procedural part. Counsel submits that since the grievance raised in this petition has already been redressed, hence this petition has become infructuous.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner stood retired on 07.02.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation but his retiral dues have been delayed by the respondents for more than one year and finally the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 26.09.2018. If at all there was any procedural delay on the part of the respondents the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the delay caused by the respondents.

¶24

Instant petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to pay interest @9% for the delay caused by them in making the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner in

¶25

[CW-1545/2008]

¶26

terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The respondents are expected to comply the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶27

Since the petitioner has retired on 07.02.2007 and post retiral benefits have been conferred to him on 26.09.2008, the respondents would calculate the interest for this intervening period and would pay the same to him within the above stipulated time.

¶28

Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

KuD/85

Dhoomi Ram Yadav v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhoomi Ram Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Nand Kumari Vs State and Ors.

Shambhu Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Uma Khandelwal W/O Shri Vishnu Prakash Khandelwal Vs Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Deependra Singh Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan