RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.