Retired Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. vs State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Water

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Near

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

3. The Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Asthana For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakhar Jain for Mr.Archit Bohra, Addl.GC. Mr.Saumil Sharma for Mr.Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025

1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to pay the interest for delayed payment of retiral dues.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement (for short, “the VRS”) on

10.01.2010, seeking VRS with effect from 28.02.2010, but without any justified reason, the application filed by the petitioner was not accepted, hence, under these compelling circumstances, he [2025:RJ-JP:10716] (2 of 5) [CW-17999/2018] approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10336/2010 (titled as Deepak Shah Vs. The State of Rajashan and Ors.). Counsel submits that as per the communication dated

06.08.2009 made by the respondents, there was no enquiry pending against the petitioner. Counsel submits that considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order dated

19.08.2015, and the respondents were directed to treat the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2010. Counsel submits that a further direction was issued to the respondents to grant him all the consequential benefits. Counsel submits that though the retiral dues were released by the respondents on 06.11.2016, but no interest was paid for the delay in releasing the retiral dues, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get claimed interest.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner could not be decided on account of an enquiry pending against him. Counsel submits that the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was allowed on 19.08.2015, and immediately thereafter, the retiral dues were released in favour of the petitioner on

06.11.2016, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:10716] (3 of 5) [CW-17999/2018]

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner submitted an application seeking VRS on 10.01.2010, with effect from

28.02.2010. It appears that when no order was passed on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10336/2010 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2015 with the following observations and directions in paras 20 to 24 which reads as under:- “20. From the facts, circumstances and materials available on record, it is evident that there was neither any enquiry pending or contemplated in case of the petitioner, which could be relied upon for declining or withholding the permission of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. There is no provision or any guideline contemplating withholding of permission of voluntary retirement of the Government Servant under Rule 50 for the period of currency of penalty. The petitioner who was not keeping good health wanted to bid fair well to the service and sought voluntary retirement which could not have been declined but for a reason sustainable in the eye of law.

21. The respondents themselves concluded that the petitioner could be allowed voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, since no enquiry was pending as is evident from communication dated 6th August, 2009 (Annexure-6). The petitioner time and again requested for voluntary retirement extending the date from which the voluntary retirement be made effective. Finally, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 28th February, 2010. In the singular facts of the case at hand the petitioner must be deemed to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 28th February, 2010.

22. For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:10716] (4 of 5) [CW-17999/2018]

23. In the result, the impugned order dated 10th February, 2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be treated as voluntarily retired w.e.f. 28th February, 2010. As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to ensure the compliance of this order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs”

6. Bare perusal of the aforesaid order clearly indicates that no enquiry was pending against the petitioner as per the communication dated 06.08.2009, issued by the respondents themselves, hence, under these circumstances, the petition submitted by the petitioner was allowed with directions to the respondents to treat him voluntary retired with effect from

28.02.2010 and a further direction was issued to the respondents to grant him all the consequential benefits, once the date of retirement of the petitioner has been treated as 28.02.2010, the petitioner would have certainly get the retiral dues immediately two months thereafter in terms of the mandate contained under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules of 1996”), but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the VRS request of the petitioner was declined which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2015 with further direction to grant him all the consequential benefits, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 for the delayed payment of retiral dues.

7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. [2025:RJ-JP:10716] (5 of 5) [CW-17999/2018]

8. Needless to observe, the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/57