Allowed¶42

Principal Secretary v. Darshan Lal Pahwa S/O Sh. Dhaniram Ji

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2026SAW/907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interest on delayed payment of commuted value of pension; interest on delayed gratuity; retiral benefits; Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996); Chapter II General Conditions; Clause IV bar on commutation while departmental enquiry pending before or after retirement; S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 distinguished as inapplicable; Tribunal order set aside; Single Judge writ and review orders set aside; Water Resources Department Rajasthan; Darshan Lal Pahwa; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 907/2022; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; decided 13/02/2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal filed on behalf of the department allowed; the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2019 and 18.10.2021 and the Tribunal's order dated 08.02.2019 set aside. ¶42

Principal Secretary Vs Darshan Lal Pahwa S/O Sh. Dhaniram Ji — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal filed on behalf of the department allowed; the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2019 and 18.10.2021 and the Tribunal's order dated 08.02.2019 set aside.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the employee was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of commuted value of pension despite the restriction under Clause IV of General Conditions, Chapter II, Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996), that commutation of pension is not available while departmental enquiry is pending before or after retirement. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge as well as the Tribunal both failed to consider the relevant rules provided in Chapter II of Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996), which place the aforesaid restriction on commutation.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The judgment in S.K. Dua is not applicable to the present case because, whereas that judgment contemplated claims founded on statutory rules occupying the field, in the State of Rajasthan there is a specific rule putting a restriction on payment of commutation of pension till departmental proceedings against the employee are concluded.

¶37

Key takeaways

On the facts and circumstances before the Division Bench, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 907/2022 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania, JJ.; decided 13.02.2026) — allowed at the instance of the Principal Secretary and Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, against the learned Single Judge's dismissal of their writ petition affirming the Tribunal's order dated 08.02.2019 directing payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity, commuted value of pension and other retiral benefits to Darshan Lal Pahwa, a superannuated Executive Engineer. The department conceded that interest on delayed gratuity had been paid during the proceedings, but resisted interest on the delayed commuted value of pension, invoking Clause IV of the General Conditions, Chapter II, Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996), under which a government servant is not entitled to commutation if departmental enquiry is pending before or after retirement. The Division Bench held that S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCC 44 (on which the employee relied) was not applicable, since in Rajasthan a specific restrictive rule occupies the field, and that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the relevant rules. The Tribunal order dated 08.02.2019, the Single Judge order dated 14.10.2019 and the review order dated 18.10.2021 were set aside.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6925-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 907/2022

¶4

¶5

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.106/2020

¶6

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16953/2019

¶8

Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Darshan Lal Pahwa S/o Sh. Dhaniram Ji, Aged About 63 Years, Superannuated From Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, R/o 763 Phase6 Mohali Near Chandigarh Punjab.

¶13

Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh
	Ms. Mansi Sharma
	Mr. Vinayam Sharma
	Ms. Mahi Choudhary
	Ms. Yuvika Pilania
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. H.R. Kumawat

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶17

13/02/2026

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘department’) challenging the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby their writ petition was dismissed and the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as Tribunal) dated 08.02.2019 impugned therein by which the department was directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, commuted value of pension & other retiral

[2026:RJ-JP:6925-DB]

[SAW-907/2022]

(2 of 5)

benefits to the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘employee’) stood affirmed, the petition filed by the department for review of the order dated 14.10.2019 was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.10.2021.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the employee after retirement claimed interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, commutation value of the pension by filing appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2019. The department challenged the said order of the Tribunal by filing writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16953/2019 before the learned Single Judge of this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.10.2019 and thereafter Review Petition No. 106/2020 filed by the department was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.10.2021.

¶24

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16953/2019 as well as the order dated 18.10.2021 in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 106/2020 the department has preferred the present appeal.

¶25

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the department submitted that during pendency of the proceedings the department has paid interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount. Learned AAG further submits that they have not paid the interest on the delayed payment of commuted value of pension as there is a restriction on commutation of pension provided in General Conditions Chapter II Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996) and

[2026:RJ-JP:6925-DB]

[SAW-907/2022]

(3 of 5)

according to Clause IV of General Conditions, a government servant is not entitled for commutation of pension if departmental enquiry is pending against him before or after his retirement. Counsel further submits that the employee has failed to challenge the said rule and therefore, no illegality/error has been committed by them in not making the payment of interest on the delayed payment of commuted leave of pension.

¶30

Learned counsel for the employee opposed the submissions made on behalf of the department and submitted that the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of commuted value of pension in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 where in para No. 11 it has been held as under: -

¶31

“11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on June 30, 1998. It is also un-disputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge- sheets/ show cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against whom serious allegations of malpractices and mis-conduct had been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter chargesheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:6925-DB]

[SAW-907/2022]

were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

¶36

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶37

We have carefully gone through the record as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.K. Dua (supra) and in our considered view the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the said judgment that if there are statutory rules occupying the field the employee could claim payment of interest relying on such rules whereas in the State of Rajasthan there is specific rule which puts a restriction on payment of commutation of pension till the departmental proceedings are concluded against the employee.

¶38

Under the facts and circumstances before us, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Tribunal both failed to consider the relevant rules provided in Chapter II of Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules 1996) which puts the aforesaid restriction. Thus, in our considered view, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

[2026:RJ-JP:6925-DB]

[SAW-907/2022]

(5 of 5)

In that view of the matter, the appeal filed on behalf of the department is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2019, 18.10.2021 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.02.2019 are set aside.

¶43

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶44

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶45

JYOTI/RASHMI/07

Principal Secretary v. Darshan Lal Pahwa S/O Sh. Dhaniram Ji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Secretary v. Darshan Lal Pahwa S/O Sh. Dhaniram Ji

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

Virendra Kumar S/O Lal Bahadur Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sushmita Saktawat D/O Dipendra Saktwat Vs State of Rajasthan

Vanita Yadav W/O Sh. Vikas Sisodiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Singh Sihag Son of Shri Moola Ram Sihag Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Vimla Devi W/O Shri Mala Ram Gurjar

The Jaipur Vidhyut Pasaran Nigam Limited Vs Gopesh Kumar Joshi S/O Shri Shiv Shankar Joshi