Allowed

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nagendra Nath Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 May 2023CW/5868/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking directions to pay interest on delayed retiral dues. The court directed the respondents to pay 9% per annum interest under Rule 89 of the 1996 Pension Rules due to undue delay in processing retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay interest @9% p.a. as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 till the date of receipt of payment by the petitioner.

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nagendra Nath… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010348]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5868/2019

¶4

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nagendra Nath Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Laxmi Narain Mandir, Khairthal Mandi, District Alwar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶8

Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶9

Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶10

Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Khairthal District Alwar

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bharadwaj with Mr. Vivek Mishra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana for Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG (Sr. Adv.)

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

11/05/2023

¶16

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶17

following prayer:

¶18

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and;

¶19

i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction direct in the nature thereof the direct to respondents to sanction the pension, commutation and due leave encashment of the petitioner with interest @18% p.a.

¶20

ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction direct in the nature thereof direct the respondents to pay arrears thereof with interest to the petitioner.

¶21

iii) Direct the respondents to pay interest @18% on delayed payment of gratuity amount.

[2023/RJJP/010348]

[CW-5868/2019]

(2 of 4)

iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from the post of Nakaguard on 31.12.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation and no departmental enquiry or criminal case was pending against him, even then his retiral dues were delayed by the respondents without any justified reason. Counsel submits that though the gratuity amount was released by the respondents vide order dated 16.04.2018 but rest of the retiral dues were not paid to him for a considerable time. Counsel submits that Pension Payment Order of the petitioner was released on 01.07.2019 and thereafter the payment of the retiral dues was paid to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the respondents were not having any authority to withheld retiral dues of the petitioner, hence the petitioner is entitled to get interest @9% per annum as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’), so appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to grant interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of the retiral dues.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after retirement of the petitioner the gratuity amount of Rs.6,49,688/- was paid to the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2018 and thereafter the amount of provident fund was also paid. Counsel submits that slight delay has occurred in

[2023/RJJP/010348]

[CW-5868/2019]

(3 of 4)

payment of rest of the amount due to some correspondence between the department, hence the petitioner is not entitled to get interest and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

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

¶33

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from the post of Nakaguard on 31.12.2017. Perusal of the record indicates that no departmental enquiry or criminal case was pending against the petitioner and the payment of gratuity amount of Rs.6,49,688/- was paid to the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2018 but rest of the amount of retiral dues were delayed by the respondents for a considerable time and thereafter Pension Payment Order was prepared on 01.07.2019, hence the considerable delay has been caused by the respondents without any justified reason.

¶34

It is settled proposition of law that whenever retirement of incumbent is due the respondents are supposed to act as per Rules of 1996 prior to date of his retirement, but here in the instant case entire exercise was delayed by the respondents for a considerable time and his retiral dues was delayed unnecessarily without any justified reason.

¶35

In view of the reasons stated above, instant petition stands allowed with directions to the respondents to pay interest @9% per annum as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 till the date of receipt of payment by the petitioner.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/010348]

[CW-5868/2019]

The respondents are expected to comply the order

¶40

passed by this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

Stay application and all pending applications, if any,

¶42

stand disposed of.

¶43

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶44

KuD/13

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nagendra Nath Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nagendra Nath Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

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

R.S.E.B. Vs Rashtriya Vidyut Karmachari Sangh

Udai Chand Vs State and Ors.

Rseb Ajmer Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma

Rsrtc Jaipur Vs Digamber Singh

State of Raj Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Mukhraj Meena S/O Shri Champaram Meena Vs District Collector Dausa