Dismissed¶42

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai v. Satate of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2026CW/8270/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition 8270/2009 (Anand Sharma, J., 05.01.2026): interest @9% on delayed gratuity/retiral dues denied; gratuity and benefits already paid; delay caused by petitioner's own challenges to selection-grade modification, confirmed in CW 1459/2008 (10.02.2009) and CW 8874/2009 (05.09.2018); interest lies only for deliberate departmental delay; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is undisputed that payment of gratuity and other benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, has already been made to the petitioner; his relief is confined to interest on the delayed payment. ¶30

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai Vs Satate of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of retirement on the payment of gratuity, encashment of privilege leave, medical bills and due salary, on account of delayed payment by the respondent-Corporation. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

It is undisputed that payment of gratuity and other benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, has already been made to the petitioner; his relief is confined to interest on the delayed payment.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Any delay in settling the gratuity and other payments of the petitioner occurred on account of the challenges made by the petitioner himself to the orders of withdrawing/modifying the selection grade.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the orders modifying the selection grade were confirmed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondent-Corporation.ratio¶41
Interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits can be awarded only where the delay is attributed to the Department, highlighting circumstances in which the delay was deliberately caused by the Officers of the Department/Corporation.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Anand Sharma, J.), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8270/2009, decided 05/01/2026: A retired Personal Assistant of the Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation (superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2007) sought interest at 9% per annum on delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment, medical bills and salary. The Court found it undisputed that gratuity and other benefits had already been paid. Any delay arose from the petitioner's own successive challenges to the withdrawal/modification of his selection grade (order dated 31.01.2008 quashed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1459/2008; fresh orders dated 06.05.2009 and 14.05.2009 upheld in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009 by order dated 05.09.2018), so the delay could not be attributed to the respondent-Corporation. Held: interest on delayed retiral payments is awardable only where the delay was deliberately caused by the Officers of the Department/Corporation, and no such deliberate delay was found. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:9]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8270/2009

¶4

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai S/o Shravan Lal, aged about 59 years, R/o A-36, J.P. Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, State Enterprises Department, Food Building Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chairman, Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation, Chomu House, Jaipur.

¶9

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation, Chomu House, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Bhairu Lal Buddhgai (petitioner, present in person)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ved Prakash Goyal, Nodal Officer, Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

05/01/2026

¶15

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to make a payment of gratuity, encashment of privilege leave, medical bills and due salary to the petitioner with interest of 9% per annum from the date of retirement as prescribed in the Rules.

¶16

It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as LDC-cum-steno at ad-hoc basis in the Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation, Jaipur.

[2026:RJ-JP:9]

[CW-8270/2009]

(2 of 5)

Petitioner in person submitted that pursuant to order dated 25.01.1992 issued by the Finance Department of respondent-Government, first selection grade on completion of nine years of service was granted to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 25.01.1992, thereafter vide order dated 20.01.1996, benefit of second selection grade was also granted to him in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f. 01.12.1995.

¶21

It is submitted by the petitioner that on attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired while holding the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 30.09.2007, however despite lapse of long time, benefit of gratuity and other dues was not granted to him which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

¶22

Mr. Ved Prakash Goyal, Nodal Officer, Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation, appeared on behalf of respondent-Corporation and submitted that earlier also, when on account of rectification of date of grant of selection grade was revised and accordingly recovery was also directed to be effected against the petitioner, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1459/2008 which came to be decided vide order dated 10.02.2009, whereby although order of modification of selection grade dated 31.01.2008 passed by the respondent-Corporation was quashed, yet this Court granted the respondent-Corporation liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

He further submitted that in compliance of direction given by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2009, fresh orders dated 06.05.2009 & 14.05.2009 were issued by the respondent-

[2026:RJ-JP:9]

[CW-8270/2009]

(3 of 5)

Corporation and same were again put to challenge by the petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 and the orders passed by respondent-Corporation with regard to modification of selection scale were upheld and it has also been observed that the petitioner has also been granted benefit of pension and other retiral benefits after his retirement from his service.

¶28

He also submitted that gratuity and other benefits as claimed by the petitioner have already been paid and delay, if any, has occurred in making a payment of amount of gratuity and other benefits, cannot be attributed to respondent-Corporation for the reasons that at the time of finalization of retiral benefits, it was found by the respondent-Corporation that certain dues, for which, the petitioner was not entitled, were wrongfully granted to the petitioner, which were rectified by the respondent-Corporation and the orders passed by the respondent-Corporation were challenged by the petitioner from time to time and ultimately such orders have been upheld by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009, hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that delay, if any, in making a payment of gratuity can be attributed to the respondent-Corporation, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for interest in the event of making a payment of gratuity with delay.

¶29

Heard and considered.

¶30

It has not been disputed by the petitioner that payment of gratuity and other benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, have already been made to the petitioner, however, he confines his

[2026:RJ-JP:9]

[CW-8270/2009]

(4 of 5)

relief only to the extent of payment of interest on account of delayed payment by the respondent-Corporation.

¶35

Record of writ petition also reflects that earlier third selection grade was withdrawn by the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 31.01.2008 and earlier benefits were also modified, which was challenged by the petitioner by raising grievance of non-compliance of Principles of Natural Justice. Thereupon, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2009 although quashed the order dated 31.01.2008, yet simultaneously granted liberty to the respondent-Corporation to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law.

¶36

It is also a matter of record that thereafter, fresh orders dated 06.05.2009 & 14.05.2009 were passed by the respondentCorporation in compliance of order dated 10.02.2009 which were again challenged by the petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009. During the pendency of the said writ petition, gratuity and other retiral benefits as admissible to the petitioner were paid by the respondent-Corporation.

¶37

While deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has upheld the action of the respondent-Corporation in passing orders dated 06.05.2009 & 14.05.2009 and it has also been recorded that benefit of pension and other retiral benefits has also been paid to the petitioner. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, where delay, if any, in settling the gratuity and other payments of the petitioner, has occurred on account of challenges made by the petitioner to the orders of withdrawing/modifying the selection grade and since the

[2026:RJ-JP:9]

[CW-8270/2009]

(5 of 5)

orders of modifying the selection grade have already been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8874/2009, it cannot be said that delay can be attributed to the respondent-Corporation. Although, there is a provision for awarding interest of delayed payment of retiral benefits, yet such interest can be awarded only in the case, where delay is attributed to the Department highlighting the circumstances in which such delay was deliberately caused by the Officers of the Department/Corporation. However, this Court does not find any such contingency reflecting deliberate delay on the part of the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest, gratuity and other benefits have already been granted to the petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court does not find any force in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same, is hereby, dismissed.

¶43

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶44

DAKSH/32

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai v. Satate of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai v. Satate of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Singh S/O Pappu Singh @ Prabhu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj @ Tony S/O Rajveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishanvati W/O Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Saqxena Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Shri Lal Yadav Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Satu Lal Vs State Education Departmentors