STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, filed under Sec. 96 of C.P.C. arises out of the judgment & decree dt. 10.09.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 22/2012, whereby the trial has decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff. The short facts are that the respondent -plaintiff retired from Rajasthan Judicial Services on 30.09.2008. Amongst the retiral benefits, he was paid the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/ - on 06.10.2008. According to him, the gratuity amount to be paid by the appellants -defendants was Rs. 9,47,166/ - on the date of his retirement and the defendants had illegally withheld Rs. 5,97,166/ -, which was subsequently paid on 25.08.2009. Hence, the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking interest @ 12% per annum on Rs. 5,97,166/ - for the period of about 10 months i.e. from 01.10.2008 to 25.08.2009. The said suit was resisted by the appellants -defendants by filing the written statement contending interalia that the maximum amount payable to the plaintiff as per the RCS (Pension Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") was Rs. 3.50 lakhs on the date of his retirement, which was already paid to him. It was further contended that the said limit was revised to Rs. 10 lacs by the Finance Department vide the order dt. 27.02.2009. The plaintiff, thereafter, for the first time contacted the defendant on 03.08.2009 and he was paid the balance amount of Rs. 5,97,166/ - towards gratuity without any delay on 25.08.2009, and thus there was no delay on the part of the defendants in making the payment of gratuity amount. The appellants had also contended interalia that the appellants -defendants were not liable to pay interest on the arrears amount as per Rule 89(5) of the said Rules.

(2.) THE trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dt. 10.09.2012 decreed the said suit of the respondent -plaintiff and directed the appellants -defendants to pay interest @ 12% per annum on Rs. 5,97,166/ - for the period from 06.10.2008 till payment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants -defendants.

(3.) THE learned counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate for the respondent -plaintiff, however submitted that though the Finance Department had raised the maximum limit of gratuity upto Rs. 10,000,00/ - as per the order dt. 27.02.2009, the appellants di4 not make the payment of the balance amount till 25.08.2009, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to the payment of interest as per the provision contained in Rule 89(1) of the said Rules. Relying upon the recommendations made by the Sethi Commission, as also the observations made by the Supreme Court, accepting the said recommendations, as also various orders passed by the Govt. in Finance Department for the implementation of the said judgment, Mr. Agarwal submitted that the respondent was entitled to the interest amount on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits, and that the trial Court having rightly appreciated the evidence on record, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment.