Rajasthan High Court clarifies that even though unutilised privilege leave encashment is not classified as “retiral dues” under relevant rules, Tribunals retain inherent authority to grant interest for delayed payment; affirms that such interest awards are not exorbitant and can be cited as binding precedent within Rajasthan’s jurisdiction.
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, J. |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | S.B. (Single Judge Bench) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Tribunal’s order in Appeal No. 32/2024 |
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law | Whether interest is payable on delayed encashment of unutilised privilege leave despite its exclusion from the definition of “retiral dues” under pension rules. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that even though unutilised privilege leave encashment does not fall within the definition of “retiral dues” under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the Tribunal is empowered to award interest on delayed payment of any dues to government servants. The delay was unexplained, and there was no disqualification against the employee. Interest at 9% per annum for the delayed amount was held not to be exorbitant. Hyper technical objections by the State were rejected, and costs were imposed for compelling the retiree to litigate unnecessarily. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgment cited in the extracted text. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on interpretation of Rule 91 B of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and position that tribunals can direct payment of interest on delayed dues. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant retired on 30.06.2022 and was entitled to encash unutilised privilege leave under Rule 91 B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Despite the Tribunal’s direction to pay within three months, the State delayed payment by over a year without explanation, prompting the retiree to pursue further legal remedies, including contempt proceedings. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum for delayed payment. The State challenged this order, arguing the amount did not qualify as “retiral dues”. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the Rajasthan High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Affirmed the Tribunal’s order in Appeal No. 32/2024; compliance with administrative rules |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarifies that interest on delayed payment can be awarded even for dues not strictly classified as “retiral dues” under pension rules.
- Technical objections on nomenclature or classification of dues will not defeat payment of reasonable interest for unexplained delay.
- Awards of modest interest (9% p.a.) on delayed government payments are not deemed exorbitant, especially when the employee is compelled to litigate repeatedly.
- State authorities may face costs if needless litigation is forced upon retirees due to unwarranted delays.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner’s objection that the encashment amount of unutilised privilege leave does not fall within the definition of “retiral dues” as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
- The Court acknowledged this technical distinction but held that the Tribunal has authority to award interest for delayed payment of any government dues, not just those strictly defined as “retiral dues.”
- The record revealed there was no disqualification or valid reason for delay in payment; the authorities failed to offer any explanation for the inordinate delay.
- The original Tribunal order had directed payment within three months, but payment was delayed by over a year, requiring contempt proceedings before action was taken.
- The Court held that awarding interest at 9% per annum was neither exorbitant nor unjustified, and the State’s stance was hyper technical.
- The writ petition challenging the grant of interest was dismissed with costs for compelling unnecessary litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and the government circular apply only to “retiral dues.”
- Asserted that the encashment amount of unutilised privilege leave does not fall within that ambit.
- Prayed for setting aside the Tribunal’s order granting interest.
Respondent
- Sought dismissal of the writ petition.
- Emphasized that the amount was paid late without cause.
Factual Background
The respondent retired as Executive Engineer on 30.06.2022 and was entitled to encash unutilised privilege leave under Rule 91 B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The competent authority delayed the payment despite a Tribunal order dated 07.06.2023 directing payment within three months. When the payment was still not made, the retiree approached the Tribunal again and also filed for contempt. The payment was made on 14.11.2023, after a delay exceeding one year. Interest at 9% per annum for the delayed period was later awarded by the Tribunal, which the State unsuccessfully challenged in the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 91 B of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951: Entitles retiring government servants to cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilised privilege leave up to 300 days.
- Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996: Provides for payment of interest on delayed “retiral dues.”
- The Court held that the phrase “retiral dues” under Rule 89 does not cover unutilised privilege leave encashment, but Tribunals can independently order interest on delayed government dues.
Procedural Innovations
- Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the State for needless litigation—split equally between the retiree and the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
- Direction for ongoing penalty of Rs. 500/- per day payable to the Legal Services Authority for further non-compliance, to be borne personally by responsible officers.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Tribunal’s authority and reinforces settled law on awarding interest for delayed dues, with a pragmatic approach to technical objections.