Rajasthan High Court
Ajay Saxena S/O Shri Mahendra ... vs Rajasthan Tourist Development ... on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4894/2019
Ajay Saxena S/o Shri Mahendra Kishan Saxena, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of House No. 339, Siddharth Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Tourist Development Corporation, Through Its
Managing Director, Third Floor, Paryatan Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Poonia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
21/09/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition has been considered and decided by this Court in
the matter of Praveen Kumar Singh Vs. Managing Director,
Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 16191/2019) & other connected matters wherein on
06.07.2022 it has been held as under;
"In the present bunch of petitions, common
request has been made to this Court by the
petitioners of issuing directions to the
respondents to pay all retiral dues to the
petitioners along with interest. There is no
dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners
have retired from service of the respondent-
department in between 2016 to 2021. The prayer
made in one of the writ petition (CWP-
16191/2019) is reproduced as under:-
"It is, therefore, most
respectfully prayed that Your
Lordships may graciously be
pleased to call for the entire
record of the case and after
(2 of 4) [CW-4894/2019]
examining the same be
further pleased to accept
and allowed the writ petition
and;
(i) by appropriate writ, order
or directions, the
respondents may be
directed to pay petitioner
amount of Gratuity about
Rs.11,23,407/- along with
interest of 24% per year.
(ii) by appropriate writ,
order or directions, the
respondents may be
directed to pay petitioner
amount of Leave
Encashment Rs.5,40,900/-,
Arrear of VI pay commission
about Rs.90,000/-, unpaid
salary of August 2016 and
September 2016 about
Rs.1,00,598/- along with
interest of 24% per year.
(iii) Any other direction
which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of
the case may also be passed
in favour of the petitioner."
Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are entitled to receive their
retiral dues along with interest on the delayed
payment and prayed that the respondents be
directed to pay retiral dues to the petitioners at
the earliest along with interest as permissible
under the Rules.
Reply in all these writ petitions being almost the
same except the numerical calculation/different
heads of retiral dues, the relevant part of the
reply filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.16191/2019 is quoted as under:-
"4. That the contents of Para No.4
of the writ petition are replied in
the terms that the petitioner
retired as Assistant Manager on
30.9.2016 from the services of the
Corporation. Thereafter, vide order
dated 24.1.2020 the sanction for
payment of gratuity of
Rs.10,00,000/- was granted and
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was
deducted as it was already paid."
Reply to Grounds
"D. That the contents of Ground-D
of the writ petition are denied in
(3 of 4) [CW-4894/2019]
the manner stated by the
petitioner. It is most humbly
submitted that the answering
respondent acted on the notice for
demand of justice and release the
payment of gratuity and part-
payment of encashed leave."
Counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondent(s) submitted that they have partly
made the payment of retiral dues in favour of
some of the petitioners and some are still left to
be paid. Counsels further submitted that the
remaining retiral dues could not be paid on
account of poor financial condition of the
Department. Counsels further submitted that the
matter with regard to financial sanction for the
purpose of paying the remaining retiral dues to
the petitioners, is pending consideration with the
State Government.
I have heard counsels for the parties and
perused the record.
Counsels for the respondents cannot dispute this
fact that by passage of time, the matter has
become of delayed payment of retiral dues for
which interest can be awarded by the Court
under the law.
Whatever amount has been paid by the
respondents towards the retiral dues to the
petitioners, still the respondents are under legal
obligation to pay the remaining retiral dues to
the petitioners and since a considerable period of
time has passed after retirement of the
petitioners and as yet the retiral dues are still left
to be paid to the petitioners, without there being
any fault on the part of the petitioners, I deem it
just and proper to award interest @9% per
annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues to
the petitioners, from the date the same became
due till its actual payment, as provided under the
law.
In that view of the matter, the respondents are
directed to pay all the retiral dues to the
petitioners within a period of four months from
today along with interest @9% per annum on the
delayed payment of retiral dues from the date
the same became due till its actual payment.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ
petitions are disposed of. Copy of this order be
separately placed in each connected file."
Counsel for respondent(s) has not disputed the judgment
passed in the matter of Praveen Kumar Singh (supra).
(4 of 4) [CW-4894/2019]
In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is
disposed of in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the
matter of Praveen Kumar Singh (supra).
The respondent(s) are directed to pay all the retiral dues to
the petitioner within a period of four months from today along
with interest @9% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral
dues from the date the same became due till its actual payment.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /226
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
