[2026:RJ-JP:1563]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2463/2022 Sayed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Fayyaz Ali, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of 174-A, Hazrat Ali Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur-302002 ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Commissioner Agriculture, Commissionerate, Panth Krishi Bhawan, Near Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

3. The Superintending Engineer And Officio Project Manager, Water Shed Cell Cum Data Centre, Zila Parishad Rajsamand

4. The Joint Director (Admn.), Water Shed Development And Land Conversion Department, Rajasthan Having Its Office Panth Krishi Bhawan, Near Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

5. The Director, Directorate Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

6. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC with Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

15/01/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:

“1. The respondents may be directed to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner, which accrued to him on his superannuation on 28.02.2010, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

2. The respondents may also be directed to suitably compensate for not paying amount of retiral dues for last 12 years.”

2. During the course of arguments, it has been appraised to the Court that the benefits were already granted to the petitioner, but the payment has been made after a substantial delay. Learned Counsel, while referring and relying upon Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delay beyond a period of two months from the date of superannuation or the date on which the amount became due.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions and submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the benefits. They placed reliance upon the reply filed by them.

4. Rule 89 of the Pension Rules is reproduced as under:

“(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 @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month preceding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorised.

(2) Every case of delayed payment of retiral benefits shall, suo moto, be examined by the Head of Office and shall be forwarded to the Administrative Department through the Head of the Department, and where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of retiral benefits was caused on account of administrative lapse or inaction, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue sanction for the payment of interest to the Director, Pension Department.

(3) In all cases, where payment of interest has been authorised, the Administrative Department concerned shall fix responsibility and take disciplinary action under the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 against the Government servant(s) who is/are found responsible for the delay in the payment of retiral benefits and shall recover the loss caused to the Government due to payment of interest to the pensioner from the Government servant(s) held responsible. (4) In the order for payment of interest, the Administrative Department shall also mention the name(s) of officer(s)/official(s) responsible for delay and the amount of interest recoverable from him/them.

(5) If