Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Khatri vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47947) on 3 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7870/2020
Jagdish Khatri S/o Late Dharmaram Khatri, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Dabi Line, Sirohi, Presently Residing At Sutharawas,
Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Department, Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Director, Local Self Department, New Balaji
Mandir, Nagori Gate, Lawaran, Jodhpur - 342001.
3. The Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Gourav Path Road,
Mahakal Nagar, Sirohi - 307001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/11/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to release
forthwith the arrears of pension, provident fund, gratuity,
commutation, leave encashment, and all other consequential
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (2 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
retiral benefits, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the respective dates of entitlement till actual disbursement.
The petitioner contends that despite his lawful entitlement and
repeated representations, the respondents have failed to settle his
legitimate dues, thereby causing grave financial hardship and
violating his constitutional and statutory rights.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Chungi Naka in the year 1981 and
continuously rendered his services till 1985 as a daily-wage
employee. It is stated that after availing duly sanctioned leave of
ten days, duly intimated to the competent authority, the petitioner
was not permitted to resume his duties upon return.
2.1. Aggrieved by such arbitrary action, the petitioner preferred
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 615/1989 before this Hon'ble Court,
which came to be decided on 14.12.1989. By the said judgment,
this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all consequential benefits. No appeal was preferred
against the aforesaid order, and hence, it attained finality.
2.2. Subsequently, since the petitioner was neither regularized in
service nor extended the benefit of the regular pay scale as
directed, he again approached this Hon'ble Court by way of S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/1991, which was adjudicated vide
order dated 24.09.1997, directing the respondents to regularize
his services and to extend the regular pay scale applicable to
similarly situated employees. This order too attained finality, no
appeal having been preferred thereagainst.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (3 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
2.3. Pursuant thereto, by an amended order dated 12.11.1998,
the services of the petitioner were duly regularized, and thereafter
he continued to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity and
diligence as a Class IV employee in the Nagar Parishad, Sirohi.
It is further averred that vide order No. 326 dated 27.04.2018, a
No Objection Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner,
directing that he be retired upon attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.01.2019. Thereafter, vide order dated
25.09.2018, it was communicated that a sum of ₹3,38,579/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-
Nine Only) was payable towards leave encashment, and
subsequently, vide order No. 5349 dated 25.10.2018, another sum
of ₹6,54,654/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Six Hundred
Fifty-Four Only) was determined as payable towards gratuity.
2.4. The petitioner retired on 30.01.2019 on attaining the age of
superannuation. However, despite the said determinations, the
respondents failed to release any amount towards pension,
provident fund, gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, or other
consequential retiral benefits. Thereafter, several correspondences
were exchanged between the office of the Deputy Director, Local
Self Department, Jodhpur, and the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad,
Sirohi, seeking clarification regarding the so-called "No-Appeal
Order" in relation to the petitioner's earlier writ petitions. It is
pertinent to note that both writ petitions were conclusively
decided in 1989 and 1997 respectively, and no appeal was ever
filed by the respondents; hence, the issue of a No-Appeal
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (4 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
Certificate was wholly redundant. Nevertheless, no concrete action
was taken by the authorities to comply with the judicial directions.
2.5. It is further submitted that in a Budget Meeting held on
13.02.2020, the matter of the petitioner was deliberated upon,
and it was resolved that a formal No-Appeal Order would be
issued. However, despite repeated oral and written
representations submitted by the petitioner, no steps were taken
for the release of his pension, gratuity, leave encashment, or other
retiral dues.
2.6. Being aggrieved by such continued inaction, the petitioner,
through counsel, served a Legal Notice dated 16.07.2020 upon the
respondents, which was duly received but remained
unacknowledged, and no payment was effected thereafter. Left
with no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has been
constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action
of the respondent authorities in withholding the petitioner's retiral
dues, despite his superannuation on 30.01.2019, is arbitrary,
unjust, and violative of the fundamental guarantees enshrined
under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. It
was urged that such inaction also runs contrary to the settled
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 wherein timely
payment of pension and retiral benefits has been recognized as a
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (5 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
measure of social welfare and deferred compensation for past
service.
3.1. Counsel further submitted that although a No-Objection
Certificate was issued vide order dated 27.04.2018, and specific
determinations were made regarding leave encashment
(₹3,38,579/-) and gratuity (₹6,54,654/-) through orders dated
25.09.2018 and 25.10.2018 respectively, the respondents have
failed to release the said amounts till date, thereby subjecting the
petitioner to unwarranted financial distress.
3.2. It was further argued that the respondents have been
unjustifiably delaying the matter under the pretext of a "No-
Appeal Order," despite the fact that the petitioner's earlier writ
petitions were conclusively decided in 1989 and 1997, attaining
finality with no appeals preferred. Such pretext, it was submitted,
reflects administrative apathy and an arbitrary exercise of power.
Learned counsel also emphasized that repeated representations,
including those discussed in the Budget Meeting dated
13.02.2020, have yielded no tangible outcome, and the petitioner
continues to be deprived of his lawful dues. The prolonged non-
payment of pension, provident fund, gratuity, commutation, and
leave encashment amounts constitutes a continuing wrong,
causing grave hardship and infringing upon the petitioner's right to
live with dignity.
3.3. In conclusion, it was asserted that the petitioner is legally
entitled to the release of all his pending retiral benefits along with
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (6 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and the respondents'
failure to comply warrants judicial intervention.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the niceties of the matter.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that
though the retiral dues of the petitioner have ultimately been
released, the same were disbursed with inordinate and
unexplained delay. The record reveals that the Pension Payment
Order (PPO) was issued after an undue delay of nearly two years
from the date of superannuation, while the Revised PPO was
sanctioned only after a further lapse of approximately five years.
Similarly, the amount towards leave encashment was released
after five years, the provident fund after three years, and the
commuted value of pension after five years. Such protracted
delay, being devoid of justification, has caused manifest financial
hardship to the petitioner and defeats the very object of prompt
disbursal of retiral benefits, which constitute deferred
compensation for past service.
5.1. In the considered view of this Court, it would be appropriate
to direct the petitioner to prepare a detailed computation
statement indicating the precise dates and amounts of each retiral
benefit actually received and the extent of delay in each case. The
said computation shall be submitted to the respondent authorities
within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondents
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47947] (7 of 7) [CW-7870/2020]
shall verify the same and, after due verification, shall ensure
payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts
found to have been disbursed belatedly, within a reasonable
period at the earliest.
6. With these directions and observations the instant Writ
Petition as well as stay petition stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
18-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:22:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
