Allowed

Chhajju Ram Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2024CW/1907/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order consolidated five writ petitions filed by retired teachers seeking interest on delayed payment of privilege leave encashment. The High Court held the State could not cite lack of funds as a valid excuse and directed payment of 9% interest under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay interest @ 9% on delayed leave encashment from retirement date till actual payment within three months. Stay application disposed of.

Chhajju Ram Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:33603]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1908/2008

¶4

Mohan Singh S/o Shri Lal Chand, Vill. And Post Therawar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur And Retired As Teacher, Government Primary School, Akholi, Deeg, District Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

District Education Officer Primary Education, Bharatpur.

¶10

Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deeg Bharatpur.

¶11

Treasury Officer, Bharatpur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1815/2008

¶15

Radha Govind Sharma S/o Late Shri Ganga Prasad Sharma, Near Mitha Kua, Dharamshala Ki Gali, Old Bus Stand, Deeg, Bharatpur And Retired As Teacher, Government Primary School, Malipura, Deeg, District Bharatpuar.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶19

Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶20

District Education Officer Primary Education, Bharatpur.

¶21

Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deeg Bharatpur.

¶22

Treasury Officer, Bharatpur.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1906/2008

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:33603]

[CW-1908/2008]

Yad Ram Verma Shri Bhudhar Ram, Mori Mohalla, Deeg And Retired As Teacher, Government Primary School, Alipur Deeg, District Bharatpur.

¶29

----Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶32

Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶33

District Education Officer Primary Education, Bharatpur.

¶34

Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deeg Bharatpur.

¶35

Treasury Officer, Bharatpur.

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1907/2008

¶38

Chhajju Ram Sharma S/o Shri Bhikkan Ram Sharma, Nangal Kho, Post Khan, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur And Retired As Teacher, Government Primary School, Pahalwara, Deeg, District Bharatpur.

¶39

----Petitioner

¶40

Versus

¶41

State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶42

Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶43

District Education Officer Primary Education, Bharatpur.

¶44

Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Deeg Bharatpur.

¶45

Treasury Officer, Bharatpur.

¶46

----Respondents

¶47

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1909/2008

¶48

Hari Singh S/o Shri Soni Ram, Vill. And Post Saurabali, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur And Retired As Teacher, Government Primary School, Nahrauli, Deeg, District Bharatpuar.

[2024:RJ-JP:33603]

[CW-1908/2008]

(3 of 5)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶55

Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶56

District Education Officer Primary Education, Bharatpur. 4. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deeg Bharatpur.

¶57

Treasury Officer, Bharatpur.

¶58

----Respondents

¶59

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC

¶60

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶61

Order

¶62

06/08/2024

¶63

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the matters are taken up together for final disposal and the same are being decided by this common order.

¶64

By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents for payment of interest on delayed payment of amount of privilege leave encashment.

¶65

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were retired in between the years 2005 to 2007, but without any justified reason the respondents have withheld the payment of amount of Encashment of Leave and the same was released in the year 2008. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the

[2024:RJ-JP:33603]

[CW-1908/2008]

(4 of 5)

petitioners are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of Encashment of Leave in terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”) therefore, appropriate orders be passed in this regard.

¶70

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the authorities had issued sanction, at a later stage on account of non-availability of funds. Counsel submits that as soon as the funds were received by the authorities, the required amount was released to the petitioners without any further delay. Hence, under these circumstances, the delay in payment of the aforesaid amount was justified. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get any interest and all these writ petitions are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶71

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that all the petitioner(s) retired way-back in between the years 2005 to 2007 from their respective posts, either on account of attaining the age of superannuation or after seeking voluntary retirement. This fact is not in dispute that after their retirement, the respondents did not release the payment of amount of Leave Encashment for a considerable time and the same was released in the year 2008. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the respondents that funds were not available with the Government and the payment was delayed on account of nonavailability of the sufficient funds. The respondent is a welfareState and under these circumstances, the respondent-State

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:33603]

[CW-1908/2008]

cannot be allowed to come out with such unjustified reason for delaying the due payment of the retired employees. The action of the respondents of withholding the amount of Leave Encashment for a considerable time is quite arbitrary and wholly unjustified. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% in terms of the Rules of 1996.

¶76

The respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and they are further directed to release interest to the petitioners @ 9% for the period of delay in payment of amount of Leave Encashment from the date of retirement until its actual payment, in terms of Rule of 1989.

¶77

Instant writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶78

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶79

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶80

GARIMA /118-122

Chhajju Ram Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhajju Ram Sharma 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

Inder Singh S/O Bala Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghasi Ram Jakad (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Nanu Ram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Ghasi Ram Jakad (Senior Citized) S/O Shri Nanu Ram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Moti Lal Vs State

Radha Govind Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.