ANURADHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife of the deceased employee Late Shri Vijai Kumar has instituted the instant writ application praying for grant of interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits contemplated under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). The prayer clause reads thus: - -

(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner's husband entered the service with the State of Rajasthan as 'Excavation & Exploration Officer on 5th August, 1964. Late Shri Vijai Kumar retired from the service attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Director, Department of Archeology & Museum, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, on 31st July, 1996. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that her late husband, on the eve of superannuation; handed over the charge to the next incumbent. It is further pleaded that despite lapse of reasonable period as contemplated under the Rules of 1996, the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband were not released even though there was neither any departmental nor any judicial proceeding was pending against him. On 6th May, 1999, the petitioner's husband was informed of missing of some articles/antiquities. The communication was responded on 18th May, 1999, stating that the articles, which were stated to be untraceable, were not in the charge of petitioner's husband rather those articles were in the charge of one Shri Hari Chand Mishra. Late Shri Vijai Kumar also cooperated with the authorities in order to trace out the missing articles/antiquities. Be that as it may, on 29th June, 2000, the petitioner's husband was served with a charge sheet and on a detailed inquiry, he was exonerated on 5th January, 2004, but even till then, no retiral benefits were released. A representation was addressed by Late Shri Vijai Kumar for release of his retiral benefits on 11th August, 2008. Pension was released on 19th November, 2008 and the gratuity, which was withheld on the pretext of some dues against house building and vehicle loan, was released on 5th November, 2009. The petitioner's husband died on 20th April, 2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Saksena, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has vehemently argued that the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband were withheld in an arbitrary and illegal manner contrary to the mandate of Rule 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 of the Rules of 1996.