IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5664/1996 K.K. Sharma (since deceased) through his legal representatives Smt. Saroj Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 06.04.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Shankar Lal Sharma for Shri Suresh Pareek, Counsel for petitioner Miss Raj Sharma, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:-
This writ petition was filed by petitioner way back in the year 1996 with prayer that charge-sheet issued to him on last date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1990, may be quashed and set aside and departmental enquiry may be dropped; respondents be further directed to make in time payment of pension and gratuity with commutation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, brief holder of Shri Suresh Pareek, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that original writ petitioner expired on 11.10.2007 during pendency of writ petition and now it is being prosecuted by his legal heirs, who have been taken on record by order of the Court dated 10.07.2008. It is contended that even though charge-sheet was issued to original writ petitioner way back on 31.03.1990 but respondents could not complete disciplinary proceedings in that charge-sheet for a decade and finally the enquiry proceedings were dropped on 10.03.2000. On account thereof, the petitioner was not paid retiral benefits in time. Learned counsel therefore submitted that in the circumstances petitioner would be entitled to benefit of interest at the rate of 9% per annum in view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1996’).
Miss Raj Sharma, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed writ petition and submitted that enquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner pursuant to order of court dated 18.09.1987 but since it was getting delayed and already a period of ten years had passed, the respondents took a lenient view and dropped enquiry proceedings but non-payment of complete and full retiral benefits to petitioner in time was not without any reason it was on account of genuine reason of disciplinary proceedings being pending against him therefore petitioner may not be awarded any interest.
Rule 89(1) of the Rules of 1996, which is relevant for present matter, reads as under:-
89. Interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits :
(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.
A perusal of the Rule 89(1) of the Rules of 1996 makes it clear that retiral benefits, except in exceptional circumstances, are required to be paid within a period of 60 days from the date the same became due and on failure thereof concerned government servant would be entitled to interest at the rate specified in the Rules. Exception thereto is made where it is established that delay in payment thereof was not on account of failure on the part of the Government but it occurred on account of failure of government servant to comply with procedure laid down in the Rules.
In the present case, it cannot be said that petitioner was in any manner responsible for delaying finalization of disciplinary proceedings for a period of about ten years and then ultimately dropping the same. In the circumstances the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interest.
In result, writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondents to pay to petitioners interest on the retiral benefits at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay in payment thereof.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of a copy of this order before them.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//