Sayed Zahid Ali S/O Syed Fayyaz Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2463/2022

¶4

Sayed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Fayyaz Ali, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of 174-A, Hazrat Ali Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur-302002

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Commissioner Agriculture, Commissionerate, Panth Krishi Bhawan, Near Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

¶9

The Superintending Engineer And Officio Project Manager, Water Shed Cell Cum Data Centre, Zila Parishad Rajsamand

¶10

The Joint Director (Admn.), Water Shed Development And Land Conversion Department, Rajasthan Having Its Office Panth Krishi Bhawan, Near Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

¶11

The Director, Directorate Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC with
	Mr. Shubham Gupta
	Mr. HansrajKuldeep,AGC

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶16

Order

¶17

15/01/2026

¶18

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:

¶19

“1. The respondents may be directed to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner, which accrued to him on his superannuation on 28.02.2010, with

(2 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

[CW-2463/2022]

interest at the rate of 9% per annum with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 2. The respondents may also be directed to suitably compensate for not paying amount of retiral dues for last 12 years.”

¶24

During the course of arguments, it has been appraised to the Court that the benefits were already granted to the petitioner, but the payment has been made after a substantial delay. Learned Counsel, while referring and relying upon Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delay beyond a period of two months from the date of superannuation or the date on which the amount became due.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions and submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the benefits. They placed reliance upon the reply filed by them.

¶26

Rule 89 of the Pension Rules is reproduced as under: “(1) If the payment of retiral benefits has been authorised after 60 days from the date when its payment became due, and it is established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this Chapter or elsewhere in these rules, interest @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month preceding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorised.

[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

[CW-2463/2022]

(3 of 5)

(2) Every case of delayed payment of retiral benefits shall, suo moto, be examined by the Head of Office and shall be forwarded to the Administrative Department through the Head of the Department, and where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of retiral benefits was caused on account of administrative lapse or inaction, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue sanction for the payment of interest to the Director, Pension Department.

¶31

(3) In all cases, where payment of interest has been authorised, the Administrative Department concerned shall fix responsibility and take disciplinary action under the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 against the Government servant(s) who is/are found responsible for the delay in the payment of retiral benefits and shall recover the loss caused to the Government due to payment of interest to the pensioner from the Government servant(s) held responsible. (4) In the order for payment of interest, the Administrative Department shall also mention the name(s) of officer(s)/official(s) responsible for delay and the amount of interest recoverable from him/them.

¶32

(5) If as a result of Government’s decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant, the amount of retiral benefits already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of:

¶33

(a) grant of emoluments higher than the emoluments on which retiral benefits already paid were determined, or

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

[CW-2463/2022]

(b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned, no interest on the arrears of retiral benefits shall be paid.

¶38

(6) In case any delay is caused in the Pension Department, responsibility shall be fixed for such delay and suitable action taken against such erring official(s) to recover the interest paid to the pensioner.”

¶39

The rule itself provides that as soon as any employee superannuates, the process of making payment is required to be expedited in a manner that the same should be completed within two months, failing which the State has also imposed responsibility to make payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others in D.B. Special Appeal No. 774/2023 dated 08.08.2025 , passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

¶40

There are no reasonable grounds of delay and the provision, referred by the Division Bench clearly reflects that the employee is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues. No fault of the present petitioner has been pointed out and nothing is on record to show that due to the fault of the petitioner the payment has been delayed. Therefore, there is no defence available with respondents thus for payment of interest the respondents are liable.

[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

[CW-2463/2022]

(5 of 5)

Otherwise also, after rendering service and on attaining the age of superannuation, a person is entitled to receive payment of all his dues on the date of retirement. Particularly, the interest clause has been intended to ensure that post-retirement, when an employee is faced with financial difficulties, he may get his retiral dues at earliest to avoid starvation. Even the NHRC has considered the retiral benefits as a human right and it has taken cognizance on multiple occasions.

¶45

Considering aforesaid, since retiral benefits are already paid thus, the writ petition is partially allowed and respondents are directed to pay an interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the petitioner on delayed payment of retiral dues. Needless to say that after the calculation of interest within 60 days, same be paid without any delay.

¶46

Accordingly, writ petition along with pending application, if any, is hereby disposed.

¶47

No order as to cost.

¶48

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶49

PREETI VALECHA /16

Sayed Zahid Ali S/O Syed Fayyaz Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Zahid Ali S/O Syed Fayyaz Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balram Tanwar S/O Sh. Dayaram Vs State of Rajasthan

The General Manager (Hrm), Bank of Baroda Vs Surya Prakash Mahawar S/O Late Shri Kanhiya Lal Mahawar

The General Manager (Hrm), Bank of Baroda Vs Sita Ram Sharma S/O Bhagwan Sahai Sharma

Govind Urf Gadad S/O Shri Raju Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lekhraj Meena S/O Shri Gobari Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Pinki Kumari W/O Shri Ravi Narayan Vs Army Public School