- (1.) INSTANT intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner who stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2000 while holding the post of UDC with the grievance that when his retiral dues were withheld by the state authorities without any justification he approached to this Court for release of his retiral dues by the respondent and the period of qualifying service was wrongly computed and that apart he is also entitled for payment of interest over the delay towards releasing his retiral dues in terms of R.89 of Rajasthan Pension Rules,1996 ( "Rules,1996 ").
(2.) IT reveals from the record that appellant-petitioner was serving on work charge basis while being appointed in the regular pay-scale on temporary basis vide order dt.01.05.1970 and thereafter appointed as LDC in the regular pay-scale against vacant post vide order dt.19.06.1972 (Annx.P/R-2) but it appears that he joined as LDC pursuant to order dt.19.06.1972 on 24.06.1972 and stood retired from service after seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2000 while holding the post of UDC. The respondent initially computed his qualifying service from 24.06.1972 to 31.10.2000 and that apart still when his retiral benefits for one or the other reason were not released by the respondent, he approached to this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1076/2003 and that came to be decided by the Single Bench vide judgment dt.29.09.2006 with direction to the respondent that in case the petitioner completes all requisite required formalities, his retiral dues be released forthwith but it appears that at that stage this question was not examined as to whether the petitioner has complied with the formalities after his retirement and the Single Bench was of the view that without taking recourse of the controversy let he may get his retiral benefits without any delay. It has come on record that provisional pension was sanctioned to the petitioner on 07.02.2003 and payment of gratuity was released on 30.10.2007 much after the date of his retirement which was 31.10.2000 and R.89 of the Rules,1996 contemplates regarding interest if there is delay in making payment of retiral dues after two months of retirement and for which the respondents were under legal obligation to pay interest towards retiral dues which were due and payable but admittedly not paid, at that stage he was compelled to approach this Court by filing writ petition and a specific prayer was made which has been reproduced in the opening para of the judgment impugned herein dt.10.01.2012 where the appellant has claimed for payment of interest over the delay towards his retiral dues, which obviously was required to be released/paid to him in terms of R.89 of the Rules,1996. However, the controversy came to be examined by the learned Single Judge regarding the question as to whether the period of service which he rendered from 01.05.1970 was to be computed as qualifying service or the period from which he joined as LDC in the regular pay-scale vide order dt.19.06.1972 and taking note of the material which came on record the learned Single Judge finally observed that appellant-petitioner is entitled to claim his qualifying service which he rendered from 01.05.1970 till stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2000 and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondent that the total period of service rendered from 01.05.1970 to 31.10.2000 be computed as his qualifying service and retiral benefits due and admissible to him be paid within a period of three months failing which he will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. This fact has come on record that he retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2000 and the delay in no manner could be attributed to the appellant which may dis-entitle him from seeking interest in terms of R.89 of the Rules,1996 and with this legitimate claim he twice approached to this Court and the state authorities were under obligation to release his retiral dues within a period of two months after his retirement and if failed to discharge their legal obligation provided U/r 89 of the Rules,1996 it became imperative to make payment of interest without any further adjudication.
(3.) AFTER the notice of appeal being served upon, Mr. Jinesh Jain, Additional Government Counsel, appeared on behalf of State. However, when the matter came up before the Court yesterday no-one was present for the State even in second round and today also Additional Government Counsel is not present. The appellant is a senior citizen and has approached to this Court in the second round of litigation with his legitimate grievance regarding payment of interest for the delay in releasing his retiral dues as contemplated U/r 89 of the Rules. As it reveals from the record, at least the delay in no manner could be attributed to the petitioner which may dis-entitle him from claiming interest and this fact is further clarified from the record that even after the matter being considered for release of his retiral dues still the appellant-petitioner has been compelled to run from pillar to post obviously to get his pensionary benefits released without any further delay and even after approaching to this Court still payment could not be released and that being so R.89 clearly contemplates to make payment of interest for the delay in releasing retiral benefits which must be paid to the incumbent within two months after retirement since the retiral benefits to be paid is the only source of livelihood and if that is being delayed, his rights of survival certainly are at stake.;