Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 477/2023
Amar Singh S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Water Works Colony, Civil Lines, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Municipal Council, Sriganganagar, Through Its
Commissioner.
3. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sriganganagar,
District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
08/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present special appeal has been filed against the order
dated 07.02.2023 for declining the payment of interest on the
delayed payment of pension.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant limits his prayer only to the
extent of seeking a direction to the respondents for awarding
interest on the delayed payment of pension. Learned counsel
submits that the appellant was serving the respondent department
and superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation from
the post of UDC on 31.01.2018. After retirement, the appellant
was issued with an order for recovery of an amount of
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-477/2023]
Rs.6,81,483/- on account of wrong fixation in the pay-scale. The
appellant against the recovery order dated 26.03.2018 preferred a
writ petition before this Court and the same was allowed by the
learned Single Bench vide order dated 07.02.2023. The recovery
order was quashed by the learned Single Judge and the
respondents were directed to refund the amount recovered from
the appellant with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
4. He submits that after superannuation of the appellant, the
appellant was not paid the pension for almost 2 years and 5
months for no fault. He submits that if the pension of the
appellant is not paid within a period of 60 days, then he is entitled
for interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 9% as per Rule
89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
(hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). He, therefore, prays
that the present appeal may be allowed and the respondents may
be directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the
delayed payment of pension amount.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
there was no delay on part of the respondents as the matter was
being examined with respect to the recovery order passed against
the appellant for wrong fixation and the excess amount paid
thereof. Learned counsel submits that the delay caused in the
matter was bonafide and reasonable and, therefore, the
respondents are not liable to pay any interest on the delayed
payment of pension.
6. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case including the order
dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench.
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-477/2023]
7. For brevity, Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1996 reads as under:-
"89. [Interest on delayed payment of retiral
benefits. [The existing rule 89 substituted vide FD
Notification No.F.15(3)FD(Rules)/97 Pt-II dated
12.6.2001.]:-
(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 preceeding 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 as a result of Government's decision taken
subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant,
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-477/2023]
the amount of retiral benefits already paid on his
retirement is enhanced on account of -
(a) grant of emoluments higher than the emoluments
on which retiral benefits, already paid, were
determined, or
(b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a
date prior, to the date of retirement of the Government
servant concerned. No interest on the arrears of retiral
benefits shall be paid.
(6) In case any delay is caused in the Pension
Department, responsibility shall be fixed for such delay
and suitable action taken against such erring official(s)
to recover the interest paid to the pensioner.
Notes. -
(i) The payment of retiral benefits becomes due on the
date of retirement and in the case of death while in
service, from the date of application for payment of
respective retiral benefits.
(ii) In case of Government servants against whom
disciplinary/judicial proceedings are pending on the date
of retirement, no retiral benefits be paid except
provisional pension, until the conclusion of the
proceedings and the issue of the final orders thereon.
The retiral benefits, if allowed to be drawn by the
competent authority on the conclusion of the
proceedings, will be deemed to have fallen due on the
date of issue of orders by the competent authority.]"
8. The appellant stood superannuated from the respondent
department on 31.01.2018, however, after the date of
superannuation, the Pension Payment Order was not issued in
favour of the appellant till 17.06.2020. The reason for not issuing
the PPO in favour of the appellant is that some recoveries were
ordered against the appellant on account of excess payment made
to the appellant for wrong fixation done at the time of pay fixation
of the appellant. The respondent submits that after the matter
was settled between the parties, the Pension Payment Order was
issued. The single Bench on a writ petition being filed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-477/2023]
petitioner-appellant has held that the recoveries could not be
effected from the appellant as there was no misrepresentation of
the facts by the petitioner-appellant for getting the higher pay-
scale. Therefore, in light of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015(4) SCC 334, the
recovery order was quashed.
9. In the considered opinion of this court, since the payment of
pension was delayed by the respondents for no fault of the
appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled for interest on
delayed payment of pension as the respondents were under an
obligation to pay the appellant his due pension within a period of
60 days and since the pension payment order was not issued in
favour of the appellant within 60 days, therefore, the appellant is
entitled for interest on delayed payment of pension as per Rule 89
of the Rules of 1996.
10. A perusal of the Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 shows that if
the respondents fails to make the payment of the retiral dues
within a period of 60 days, then the employee will be entitle for an
interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of
pension. Since, in the present case for no fault of the appellant,
the pension has not been disbursed by the respondent department
within a period of 60 days and the same has been delayed by a
period of more than 2 years, therefore, the appellant is entitled for
interest on delayed payment of pension as per Rule 89 of the
Rules of 1996.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal merits
acceptance, the same is allowed and the respondents are directed
[2025:RJ-JD:35309-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-477/2023]
to pay an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. to the appellant
on the delayed payment of pension.
12. The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
26-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
