JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to release the annual grade increment to the petitioner on completion of his service of one year from 1.3.90 by computing the post retirement benefits. It has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay interest to the petitioner 24% p.a. on the amount which though due but was not paid on the due date. 2. This writ petition has been filed on 5.9.92. Notice to show cause was issued on 14.9.92. In pursuance of the notice, the non-petitioners have put in appearance and filed reply. It has been stated that the annual grade increment is due on completion of one year's service under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and it is granted to those who remain in Government service on the date it is due. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, an increment is an attachment to the pay, as defined in rule 7(24) which is invariably drawn by a Government Servant under rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules but as the petitioner had already been retired on 28.2.1991 and as such, he was no longer a Government Servant on 13.1991 and thus obviously he cannot get both pension and pay on 1.3.1991. It has been stated that under rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, a Government Servant, whose date of birth is 1st of a month, is retired on afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month and accordingly, the petitioner whose date of birth was 13.1993, was rightly retired on 28.2.1991 and he has not challenged his retirement order. It has also been stated that the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay caused in the payment of post-retirement benefits, inasmuch as necessary verification of his service was not got done by him from the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur. So much so, his Last Pay Certificate issued by the Government Advocate on 15.12.1990 was not proper and correct and which had to be returned and got completed from him, as is clear from the letter dated 4.4.1991 written to the Government Advocate, Jodhpur (Anx. R/1). Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the interest for the delay by him. So much so, his Last Pay Certificate issued by the Government Advocate on 15.12.1990 was not proper and correct and which had to be returned and got completed from him, as is clear from the letter dated 4.4.1991 written to the Government Advocate, Jodhpur (Anx. R/1). Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the interest for the delay by him. It has been further stated that the petitioner himself could not get his service book in time from the office of Government Advocate, Jodhpur before being retired on 20.2.1991. The respondents.have also stated that in order to dispose of his pension case expeditiously a supernumerary post of A.L.R. had to be got created from 21.2.1991 to 28.2.1991 in consultation with the Finance Department, as the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur refused to accept him on duty on 21.2.1991 as there was no vacant post. It was only after the creation of his post that his salary and other benefits could be given. The petitioner has concealed this important fact from the Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 3. The case has come up before me today and as agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard family. 4. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two fold contentions; firstly that the action of the respondent depriving the petitioner of increment only on the ground that he was not in service on 1.3.91 is discriminatory and secondly that despite the mandate of Rule 286 of the Rajasthan Service Rules the petitioner has been deprived of his property in the form of pension, gratuity, commutation and leave salary which he was entitled to under the law to receive in the month of March, 1991, but he was not paid the amount in time, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the amount @ 24%. He has relied on U.O.I. v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Ret.) & Ors., 1994 2 SCC 240 ), O.P. Gupta v. UOI, 1987 4 SCC 328 and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J.& K. 1992 4 SCC 217 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. He has relied on U.O.I. v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Ret.) & Ors., 1994 2 SCC 240 ), O.P. Gupta v. UOI, 1987 4 SCC 328 and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J.& K. 1992 4 SCC 217 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is no doubt true th4 under rule 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules annual grade increment becomes die on completion of one year's service but it is granted to those who remain in Government service on the date it is due and according to the said rule the petitioner was entitled to annual grade increment on 1.3.91 but since the petitioner's date of birth was 1.3.1933 and as per the rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, a Government Servant whose date of birth is 1st of a month, is retired on afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month, the petitioner was rightly retired on 28.2.91 being the last day of the proceeding month, he could not be granted the annual grade increment as on the relevant date he was no more a Government servant, therefore, there is no substance in the first contention of Mr. Mridul particularly when the petitioner has not challenged the retirement order. The petitioner though in rejoinder has come out with a case that as he had completed one year of service on 28.2.1991, the increment became due on that date but the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of Rule 31 of the R.S.R. As already stated as per rule 31 the increment is granted to those who remain in service on the date it is due and in the present case it became due on 1.3.1991 whereas he was retired on 28.2.91, so I don't find any force in the first contention. 7. Secondly, it has been contended by Mr. Mridul that the petitioner is entitled for interest for the late payment of his post retirement benefit. 8. Rule 286 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, enjoins upon the Government to pay pension in the month following the date of retirement. 7. Secondly, it has been contended by Mr. Mridul that the petitioner is entitled for interest for the late payment of his post retirement benefit. 8. Rule 286 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, enjoins upon the Government to pay pension in the month following the date of retirement. This is a mandatory provision and it cannot be violated and in case there is unexplained delay or negligence on the part of the authority then incumbent is entitled to get interest as per the verdict of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. But each case depends upon the facts of its own. In the case in hand the last annual grade increment of Rs. 75/- in the pay scale of Head L.A. (Rs. 2000-3200) was sanctioned to the petitioner on 13.90 and then he was posted as A.L.R. He joined duty on 21.2.91 in awaiting posting orders as A.L.R. Thereafter in pursuance of Law Department's order dated 23.2.91 he joined his duty as A.L.R. in Law Department on 26.2.91. The respondents have come out with a case that as there was no other vacant post of A.L.R. and the Secretary, P.H.E.D. Jaipur refused to accept him on duty in order to dispose of the pension case of the petitioner expeditiously, a supernumerary post of A.L.R. had to be got created from 21.2.91 to 28.2.91. That apart his last pay certificate issued by the Government Advocate on 15.12.90 was not proper and correct and which had to be returned by the respondents to him vide letter dated 4.4.91 (Ex.R/1). Further the service book of the petitioner was completed by the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur on 20.2.1991 whereas he was to retire on 28.2.91. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents did not make efforts to clear all the dues particularly in order to meet the petitioner's claim of increment even after his superannuation for which he served a notice for demand of justice and Law Department as well as the Finance Department took some time to decide the matter. Under these circumstances in the given case the delay in payment of post retirement benefit to the petitioner stands sufficiently explained and it can't be said to be intentional delay or negligence on the part of authorities concerned, so as to entail liability on the respondent to pay interest. Under these circumstances in the given case the delay in payment of post retirement benefit to the petitioner stands sufficiently explained and it can't be said to be intentional delay or negligence on the part of authorities concerned, so as to entail liability on the respondent to pay interest. In view of this, the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful. 9. No other point has been pressed before me. 10. In view of above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed without there being any force. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed *******