Honble MISRA, J.–This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Onkar Nath Ganjoo, a retired Assistant Engineer of the Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, claiming the amount of pension and gratuity which had been withheld. The pension amount now having been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition at the instance of this court, the only question whichrequires consideration is, whether any interest is payable to the petitioner for late payment of the pension amount. (2). The facts of the case are short and simple, yet, it gave rise to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner had been functioning as an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, in Mahi Project, Banswara from which re retiredon reaching the age of superannuation on 30/5/1992, after serving the Government of Rajasthan for about 35 years. He worked diligently and to the satisfaction of his superior authorities and was never awarded any adverse remarks or any punishment during his entire service career. However, when he retired from the service of the Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, his pension papers andthe amount of gratuity payable to him were not finalised for a long time, due to which he served a notice on the Department under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. About six months thereafter on 20/10/1992, he received a copy of the communication from the Executive Engineer, Sagwara, which was addressed to the Director, Pension, forwarding the petitioners pension case, giving a remarksby way of an endorsement to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project that an amount of Rs. 2,76,827.57 was outstanding against the petitioner, due to which the Pension Department would not be in a position to finalise the case till the advance shown against the petitioners name was regularised. The Pension Department, therefore, sent back the case to the Executive Engineer, Mahi Sagawara Canal Division, Sag-wara for clearing the advance shown against the name of the petitioner. (3). The petitioner readily submitted a detailed account of the aforesaid amount on 16/11/1992 (vide Ex. 4), wherein it was also stated that he has been representing even since 9/12/1991 that no amount was outstanding against him, but the Department of Irrigation failed to examine it and thus did not finalise the caseof the petitioner for payment of his full pension, commutation and gratuity. 4), wherein it was also stated that he has been representing even since 9/12/1991 that no amount was outstanding against him, but the Department of Irrigation failed to examine it and thus did not finalise the caseof the petitioner for payment of his full pension, commutation and gratuity. It is pertinent to mention herein that all these years the petitioner had merely been getting provisional pension and the inordinate delay in payment of his full pension obviously created mental agony and suffering to him. The petitioner pursued his case of pension and still failing to get it finalised, served the respondents with anotice of demand for justice on 10/7/1993 through his advocate and when the same also received no response, the petitioner was left with no choice than to move this Court by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (4). A show cause notice was issued to the respondents initially on 8/8/1994 followed by another order passed on 23/9/1994 directing the respondents to paythe amount of full pension to the petitioner or pass a reasoned order on his notice for demand of justice. It was also directed that the respondents may show cause, why interest should not be paid to the petitioner for delayed payment of his full pension. On this, a reply came to be filed by the respondents where a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of this writ petition at Jaipur Bench on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for according to the respondents, this matter ought to have been raised at the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur. It was furtheraverred that the amount of pension was not paid to the petitioner since the petitioner while discharging his duties and done work for which no prior sanction was given by the competent authority and, in such circumstances, the expenses incurred by the officer concerned, had to be accounted after due sanction and till that time, the amount remains outstanding against the employee in his account. Itwas for this purpose that a letter dated 27/5/1992 was written to the petitioner to get necessary clearance in order to compute the petitioners amount of pension. A letter had also been addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer to get necessary clearance regarding miscellaneous advances outstanding against the petitioner so that his pension case could be finalised promptly. A letter had also been addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer to get necessary clearance regarding miscellaneous advances outstanding against the petitioner so that his pension case could be finalised promptly. However, when thismatter was fully thashed out and examined, it came out that the petitioner is entitled to get full pension except a sum of Rs. 6,512.12 which was fit to be withheld according to the respondent No.3, the Executive Engineer only, by the respondents and according to him it was a valid reason for withholding the petitioners full pension amount. However, this objection was never got approved by the higherauthorities, viz Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer. It has been further stated that so far as the amount towards State Insurance and GPF are concerned, the petitioner had already got full payment on that account. A letter for this purpose had also been written by the respondent No.3, the Executive Engineer on 30/8/1993 to the Director Pension. (5). The respondents have, thus, sought to justify the delay in payment of full amount of pension to the petitioner and, it has been urged in this regard that pension is not paid immediately if amounts are outstanding against a retired employee and, hence the benefit of provisional pension is granted initially and in case of the petitioner, recommendation was made for payment of pension exceptRs. 6,512/-. It has been further contended that part of the pension was already withdrawn on account of miscellaneous advances which were outstanding against the petitioner. The respondents have further justified their action by stating that the Executive Engineer had to get necessary clearance for payment of pension to the petitioner if it is withheld for a long time. But it does not mean that there was nofault on the part of the petitioner because it was necessary for the petitioner also to get necessary sanction or clearance for the amount incurred by him so that he could get the benefit of full pension immediately after his retirement. The claim of interest is, therefore, challenged as erroneous as according to the respondents, it is not a case where full pension had been withheld and a part of it only had notbeen paid on account of the amount outstanding against the petitioner for the reasons which are justified. The claim of interest is, therefore, challenged as erroneous as according to the respondents, it is not a case where full pension had been withheld and a part of it only had notbeen paid on account of the amount outstanding against the petitioner for the reasons which are justified. It is also stated on affidavit that the Pension Department has already been recommended to grant full pension to the petitioner except an amount of Rs. 6,512.12. (6). The contentions have been met by the petitioner by way of rejoinder andit has been first of all urged in regard to the preliminary objection that this court has full jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as part of the cause of action has arisen at Jaipur since the Director of Pension is the authority for payment of the amount of pension, and no due certificate and no-departmental enquiry pending certificate had also been given by the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, Sinchai Bhawan, Jaipur and, hence, this writ petition had rightly been filed at Jaipur. (7). It has next been contended that the provisional pension to the tune of 75% is also illegal as under Rule 170 (A) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 100% provisional pension is payable and, hence, the petitioner was entitled for full pension, but, the same was unnecessarily dragged on and withheld without any fault of the petitioner so much so that the amount of gratuity and commutation hadalso been withheld. It has also been contended that initially outstanding amount was shown against the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,39,516/- which was most unfounded and, it was only on perseverence of the petitioner and after he filed this writ petition in this court, that the amount was computed from which it came out that the petitioners contention was correct and the amount of State Insurance andGPF was paid after 8 months of the petitioners retirement, and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is still pending with the respondents. It has also been submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is still pending with the respondents. It has also been submitted that the amount of Rs. 6,512/- which has been claimed to be outstanding against the petitioner is unfounded yet representations had been made by the petitioner, for adjusting the said amount and to pay him the balance in settlement of full and finalpayment of the amount of pension in order to cut short the controversy, but the respondents failed even to adjust the said amount for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The Superintending Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara by a series of letters bearing No. 1595 dated 5/6/1992. No. 1806 dated 16.6.1992, No. 2215 dated 30/6/1992, No. 3916 dated 9/9/1992 and No. 4542 dated 3/9/1992 asked theExecutive Engineer, Div. I, to clarify the position, but the Executive Engineer did not respond to either of the above letters. The petitioner had also further represented vide his letter in response to letter dated 17/5/1994, which he had received from the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, but it was not responded. Hence, it has been submitted that the petitionershould not have been allowed to suffer the agony of withholding of his pension on account of inaction of the Executive Engineer who after verification should have either given no dues certificate or should have responded to the queries made by the Superintending Engineer. But he was totally insensitive and refused to react. It has also been contended that the full payment of the amount of pension is payableeven by way of provisional pension and, therefore, withholding the petitioners pension and other retiral benefits is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the petitioner has claimed full pension as well as retiral benefits at the rate of 24%. (8). Having examined the plea and counter plea raised on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents and also on perusal of the relevant annexures inthis regard, I have been able to notice that, although, according to the respondents reply filed in this case, an amount of Rs. 6,512/- has been claimed to be outstanding against him, the Senior Accounts Officer to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara by his letter dated 20/7/1993, as contained in Ex. 6,512/- has been claimed to be outstanding against him, the Senior Accounts Officer to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara by his letter dated 20/7/1993, as contained in Ex. 4 had written to the Exe- cutive Engineer that the entire amount of miscellaneous advance placed againstShri Ganju the petitioner herein, had been cleared of as it has been absolved of the liability towards the amount of Rs. 2,39,516/- which had been shown outstanding against him, since it had received ex-post-facto approval of the Chief Engineer, who had opined that the works for the said amount was executed by the petitioner with sanction of the higher authorities. Hence, nothing was outstanding against him.Thereafter a letter dated 23/7/1993, as contained in Annexure 5, had also been addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer, Mahi Project that the amount outstanding against the petitioner be adjusted and information in this regard be communicated to the Executive Engineer, Mahi Project, Garhi. But the Executive Engineer again raised an objection on 24/8/1992 as contained in Ex. 6 that an amount of Rs. 792.12 was still outstanding against the petitioner and a further sum of Rs. 5720/- was still to be adjusted which amount had been claimed fixing the liability against the petitioner in some court case, the particulars of which were not communicated at all. The petitioner vide Ex. 7, which is a letter sent by him on 29/9/1993 was sent to the Executive Engineer, protesting the said claim where it had been categorically stated that this amount was never reported to him as having been outstanding against him and, this amount was shown to have been outstanding against him merely as an after-thought in order to harass him and get his pension case delayed.However, the Executive Engineer refused to give no due certificate to the petitioner vide his letter dated 9/11/1993, as contained in Ex.8 to the writ petition nor reported the matter to the higher authorities, as a result of which the petitioner was compelled to move this Court. (9). All the aforesaid history clearly reveals that in spite of the letter of the ChiefEngineer and the Superintending Engineer indicating that no amount was oustanding against the petitioner after ex-post-facto approval was given for advance amount to the extent of Rs. (9). All the aforesaid history clearly reveals that in spite of the letter of the ChiefEngineer and the Superintending Engineer indicating that no amount was oustanding against the petitioner after ex-post-facto approval was given for advance amount to the extent of Rs. 2,39,516/-, which the petitioner had spent while discharging his duty as Assistant Engineer, the Executive Engineer, Mahi Project, Sagwara refused to issue `no due certificate on the basis of the claim of Rs. 6512/-without indicating any detail to the petitioner regarding the claim of Rs. 5720/- even if Rs. 792/- may be accepted to be outstanding against him and assuming it was outstanding, there is no reason why the petitioner should not have been paid his full pension after deducting this amount at least from the date when the Senior Accounts Officer to the Chief Engineer wrote to the Executive Engineer directinghim that the amount outstanding against the petitioner be treated as adjusted, which was expressed by letter dated 23/7/1993, as contained in Ex. 5. The later history creating obstruction, in my opinion, is a mere excuse and after-thought on the part of the respondent No. 5 Executive Engineer, Mahi Project, Sagwara who was posted there on 27/3/1993 to explain his inaction and had no valid reason tosit tight over the petitioners pension case, as explained hereinabove, delaying payment of full pension. (10). Even if the factual part, as indicated hereinbefore be ignored by taking them as procedural lapse, Rule 170(A) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is to the advantage of the petitioner which clearly lays down that the petitioner could havebeen paid his full pension, even by way of provisional pension on the basis of his qualifying service, which was not paid to him without reasonable justification, which perhaps would not have been paid even by now but for the strict instructions of this Court. The respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, the then Executive Engineer, Mahi Project had been extremely callous in the matter of the claim of thepetitioners pension in this case and hence, I feel justified in directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of his full pension at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of actual payment of pension after deducting the amount of provisional pension. The Department of Irrigation shall be at liberty to realise this amount of interest payable to the petitioner from the then ExecutiveEngineer who was posted at Mahi Project, Distribution Division-1, at Garhi on 23/7/1993 for his inaction and delaying the payment, thus becoming an active tool in the cart of proverbial ``red tapism. The writ petition is, thus allowed with costs which, I feel, is fully justified under the circumstances of this case.