The main legal point established is that under Rule 89(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, a retired employee is entitled to interest at 9% per annum for delayed payment of pensionary benefits when the court holds that the employee was entitled to higher pensionary benefits/retirement benefits under the law.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Even though, principal relief sought for in the writ petition that the appellant was entitled to be treated as having retired from the substantive post of Private Secretary, has been granted by learned Single Judge, only to the limited extent, in so far as rate of interest is concerned, the appellant feels aggrieved and has filed this appeal.

3. Relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2022 in Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1230/2019), learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the present case, as has been directed by learned Single Judge, against which appeal has also been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2022 in State of Rajasthan & Others v. Pradeep Kumar Singh (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1006/2021), the appellant's entitlement to statutory interest under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has not been favorably answered and only 6% interest per annum has been awarded.

4. Relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), it is contended that the consequence of the declaration in favour of the appellant would be that he was entitled to release of retiral benefits which include pension, gratuity and leave encashment as is applicable in the case of a Private Secretary. Therefore, the legal consequences have to flow entitling the appellant to interest @ 9% per annum as ordained under Rule 89 of the Rules.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that present is not a case where the appellant having retired, he was not granted any pensionary benefits. At that time, the respondent authority, on bona fide formation of opinion that the appellant was substantively holding the post of LDC, his pension was worked out. It was only after judicial pronouncement that he has been held entitled to pensionary benefits by treating him as having retired from the post of Private Secretary. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of inaction or failure on the part of respondents and as such the entitlement of interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount could not be allowed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Indisputably, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner that he substantively continued on the post of Private Secretary until his retirement found favour and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the appellant was entitled to retiral benefits treating him as having superannuated from the post of Private Secretary. That order was further challenged by the respondents by filing appeal, which too was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1006/2021.

8. The legal consequences flowing from the declaration made by this Court are that the release of retiral benefits by treating writ petitioner as LDC was not proper in law and he was entitled to retiral benefits by treating him as having retired from the substantive post of Private Secretary. That would mean that he was entitled to retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment at higher rates. This would incidentally involve payment of revised pensionary benefits, i.e., payment of difference of pensionary benefits, which were paid earlier and which are now required to be paid to him by virtue of revision consequent upon judicial order.

9. Provision contained in Rule 89 (1) of the Rules 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 @