The Rajasthan High Court affirms that tribunals may award interest on delayed payments of unutilised privilege leave on retirement, even though such amounts do not fall within the definition of ‘retiral dues’ under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The judgment rejects a technical reading that would exclude leave encashment from interest provisions, thus reinforcing remedies for government servants facing delays. This decision upholds tribunals’ remedial powers and is binding precedent within Rajasthan public service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/11843/2025 of THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY Vs DEVKARAN SINGH SHEORAN S/O SHRI MANGLARAM |
| CNR | RJHC020648472025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | Single Bench (S.B.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority within Rajasthan High Court jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Tribunal’s order dated 09.04.2024 in Appeal No. 32/2024 |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Government Servant Retirement Benefits |
| Questions of Law | Whether interest can be awarded on delayed payment of privilege leave encashment not classified as ‘retiral dues’. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that even though the amount of unutilised privilege leave does not fall under the definition of ‘retiral dues’ as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and related government circulars, tribunals have the authority to award interest for delayed payment of such dues. The Court observed that there was no disqualification or reason for withholding the payment, and that the state failed to provide any explanation for the delay. The Tribunal’s decision to award 9% interest per annum was found to be reasonable and not excessive. Hyper-technical objections by the State were rejected, reinforcing the remedial scope of tribunals for government servants. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified in the judgment text |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Rules 89 and 91B of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951; State Government Circular dated 29.07.2016 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The respondent retired on 30.06.2022 but was not paid his unutilised privilege leave encashment in time. An appeal (No. 6318/2022) to the Tribunal resulted in directions for payment within three months, but payment was only made on 14.11.2023 after a contempt petition was filed. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest for the delay, which the State challenged on technical grounds regarding the definition of ‘retiral dues’. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and service tribunals in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals across India; service law matters involving public servants |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Tribunal’s earlier reliance on Rule 89 (retiral dues) clarified not strictly necessary for awarding interest; broader power affirmed |
| Follows | Construction of Rules 89 and 91B of Rajasthan Service Rules; application of general principles for compensating delayed payments |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court clarifies that interest may be awarded on delayed payment of unutilised privilege leave encashment, even though such amount is not categorised as ‘retiral dues’ under pension rules.
- Service tribunals retain power to award interest as equitable relief for undue delays by the Government in effecting payment to retired employees.
- Hyper-technical objections based on dictionary definitions of retiral dues will not bar claim for interest by government servants.
- Costs may be imposed on state departments/officers for unjustified procedural delays in payment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the facts and concluded the delay in payment of privilege leave encashment was unjustified and unexplained by the State.
- The petitioner argued that Tribunal misapplied Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and a government circular, as unutilised privilege leave is not a retiral due. The Court agreed on this technical reading, but clarified that the Tribunal’s award of interest could still be justified on broader principles.
- The Court relied on its interpretation of Rule 91B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, confirming the entitlement to encashment of unutilised privilege leave.
- Noted the State had not asserted any disqualification for payment, yet unnecessarily delayed payment far beyond the Tribunal’s directions.
- Held that tribunals have inherent authority to award interest for delayed payments to redress the injustice caused to government servants.
- Found the rate of 9% per annum to be reasonable.
- Dismissed the petition as based on hyper-technical and unmeritorious objections, and imposed costs for unnecessary litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal erroneously awarded interest under provisions (Rule 89, related circular) meant only for ‘retiral dues’, whereas privilege leave encashment is not covered.
- Sought setting aside of Tribunal’s order granting interest.
Respondent
- Supported Tribunal’s order; urged dismissal of the writ petition.
Factual Background
The respondent, a retired Executive Engineer, was not paid his unutilised privilege leave encashment upon superannuation on 30.06.2022. He successfully appealed to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which ordered payment within three months, but the State delayed payment by over a year, acting only after a contempt petition was filed. Due to the delay, the respondent sought interest, which was partially allowed by the Tribunal at a rate of 9%, a decision the State challenged on technical legal grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 91B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 entitles government servants to encashment of up to 300 days of unutilised privilege leave on retirement.
- Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and State Government Circular dated 29.07.2016 provide for interest on delayed payment of ‘retiral dues’, but do not define privilege leave encashment as such.
- The Court clarified that, regardless of strict statutory categorisation, tribunals have power to grant interest to remedy unjustified delays.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court ordered costs of Rs. 10,000/- split between the respondent and the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, recoverable personally from responsible officers in case of further delay (Rs. 500/- per day).
- Reinforcement of accountability for administrative delay by imposing a per-day penalty on officers for non-compliance with the Court’s timeline.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirmed the existing remedial jurisdiction of service tribunals to ensure fair compensation even if a technical statutory provision does not expressly authorize interest, so long as the equities demand it.