HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12988/2025 Dr. Than Singh S/o Late Shri Bhikam Singh, aged about 66 years, R/o Flat No. 206, Shri Krishna Residency, Chordia City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur.

2. Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota, through its Registrar, Rawatbhata Road, Kota.

3. Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota, through Comptroller, Rawatbhata Road, Kota.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Vyas Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma Advocate on behalf of Ms. Anita Agarwal Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

16/02/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for release of his retiral benefits, namely gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension along with interest for the delayed payment.

2. The material facts are that the petitioner was holding the post of Clerk Grade–I in Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). He was initially granted the benefit of the 5th Pay Commission in the pay scale of 5500–175–9000. Subsequently, on the basis of an audit objection, the said benefit came to be withdrawn vide order dated

20.03.2018. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees, challenged the said order by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8694/2018, wherein, this Court stayed the operation of order dated 20.03.2018 vide interim order dated 23.04.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 8694/2018. It is not in dispute that only provisional pension was sanctioned to him under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') and that gratuity, leave encashment and commutation were not released until 23.09.2025, when the respondents, pursuant to an undertaking given before this Court, released the retiral dues taking his pay scale as 5000–8000.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents justified the delay by stating that due to non-finalisation of pay fixation under Rule 81(1)(a)(ix) of the Rules of 1996 and in view of the interim order dated 23.04.2018, the retiral benefits could not be computed and disbursed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is settled proposition of law that the pension and retiral benefits are not bounty, but constitute a vested right accruing to an employee upon retirement. The obligation of the employer to ensure timely settlement of retiral dues is statutory in character.

7. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2019. Admittedly, except provisional pension, no retiral dues were paid to him till 23.09.2025, which makes it clear that there is a delay of more than six years releasing the retiral benefits.

8. The justification put forth by the respondents is that pay fixation was under challenge and an interim order was operating. However, this Court finds that the interim order dated 23.04.2018 merely stayed the operation of the withdrawal order dated 20.03.2018. The respondents were not restrained from determining retiral benefits on a provisional or alternative basis, subject to final outcome of the pending writ petition. Even assuming, there was ambiguity regarding pay scale, nothing prevented the respondents from releasing at least the admitted retiral dues on the basis of the lower pay scale, subject to adjustment.

9. The stand of the respondents that payment would have amounted to contempt is misconceived. An interim order staying withdrawal of pay scale cannot be construed as a prohibition against disbursal of retiral benefits. On the contrary, withholding retiral dues for years together defeats the very object of granting pension.

10. It is also noteworthy that in an identical matter, Co- ordinate Bench of this