Partly allowed

Ramgopal Yadav S/O Late Shri Diwan Chand Yadav v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2026CW/1213/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in pension benefits following compulsory retirement. Court held delay attributable to authorities and directed release of benefits with interest.

What did the court decide?

Release of pension and retiral benefits within 45 days; payment of interest @ 9% per annum from admissibility date till actual payment.

Ramgopal Yadav S/O Late Shri Diwan Chand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35206]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1213/2025 CNR: RJHC020064552025 | URN: CW / 2972U / 2025

¶4

Ramgopal Yadav S/o Late Shri Diwan Chand Yadav, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 4, First Flour, Nagar Nigam Road, Near Water Works, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.

¶8

The Superintendent Engineer (Vigilance), Public Health And Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan, Civil Lines, Jaipur- 302006.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Dausa Division, Dausa, Raj.

¶10

The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Sub Division Nagar, Dist. Dausa, Raj.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Ms. Sneha Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

01/09/2026

¶16

Although, by way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner initially challenged order dated 25.09.2020 passed by Chief Engineer (Administration) PHED, Jaipur, whereby penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner, yet during the course of arguments, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if, the relief of quashing of

[2026:RJ-JP:35206]

[CW-1213/2025]

(2 of 4)

compulsory retirement cannot be granted, even then, the grievance of the petitioner is writ large, for the reasons that despite the fact that order of compulsory retirement was issued by the respondents on 25.09.2020, yet till this date, not a single penny towards retiral benefits has been given to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, order of penalty of compulsory retirement virtually retired the petitioner at premature stage, yet it does not curtail rights of the petitioner to avail pension and other retiral benefits as admissible under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). He submits that for no plausible reason, despite passing order in the year 2020, the respondents have unnecessarily delayed grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and such delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for interest as admissible under Section 89 of the Rules of 1996.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents while defending the order of compulsory retirement, submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has not been benefited by regular retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and he was admittedly subjected to disciplinary proceedings arising out of his misconduct relating to willful absence, hence, naturally the question of verification of service of the petitioner is also required to be decided for the purpose of determining the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension. Under these circumstances, in administrative process of verifying service of the petitioner, some time has been taken by the authorities, which

[2026:RJ-JP:35206]

[CW-1213/2025]

(3 of 4)

cannot be said to be mala fide exercise of powers and the reasons for delay in granting retiral benefits to the petitioner is totally bona fide.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

Since, challenge to order of compulsory retirement has been given up by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, there is no requirement of making any comment over the merits of order of compulsory retirement.

¶29

It has also not been disputed that retirement of an employee, whether it takes place in normal course by virtue of attaining age of superannuation or it takes place as a matter of penalty or weeding out exercise by the Government, still the employee has the right to receive pension and other post-retrial benefits strictly in accordance with the rules.

¶30

In the instant case, at the instance of respondentGovernment, the petitioner has faced departmental enquiry and subsequently punished with penalty of compulsory retirement. Order of compulsory retirement has been passed on 25.09.2020 i.e. almost 6 years back from today. Under these circumstances, the excuse put forward by the respondents that on account of there being no proper service verification of the petitioner, the respondents could not assess the correct pension which is to be paid to the petitioner, does not convince this Court. The respondents are admittedly custodian of the record relating to the employees, therefore, they cannot raise a plea that the record was not available with them so as to assess and determine the pension of the petitioner. Any plea with regard to administrative delay is

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:35206]

[CW-1213/2025]

also meritless looking to the long gap between the date of order of compulsory retirement as well as date of decision of this writ petition.

¶35

In the entire reply to the writ petition or even during oral arguments, nothing has been suggested by learned counsel for the respondents so as to infer any kind of delay to be attributed to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that delay in granting pensionary benefits to the petitioner is solely attributable to the Government Authorities. It is settled proposition of law that pension is not a bounty and is rather vested right of the employee.

¶36

Under these circumstances, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part and the respondents are directed to sanction and release pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. They shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the aforesaid benefits are admissible to the petitioner till the date of actual payment of retiral and other benefits.

¶37

It is made clear that in case, compliance is not made within a period of 45 days in the manner directed above, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶38

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶39

27/Jatin

Ramgopal Yadav S/O Late Shri Diwan Chand Yadav v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramgopal Yadav S/O Late Shri Diwan Chand Yadav v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases