JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer that respondents be directed to pay to him a sum of Rs.16,274/- as interest on retiral benefits. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that respondents well in advance issued an order on 1/12/2000 that he would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 15/8/2001 and accordingly notified the date of his retirement is 31/8/2001. Despite the aforesaid order that was issued nine months before his due date of retirement, he has still not been paid payment of retiral dues. Uptill now, petitioner has only been paid the payments of G.P.F. amounting to Rs.1,36,328/- on 12/11/2001 with interest upto 31/7/2001 but no interest was paid w.e.f. ⅛ /2001 to 12/11/2001. Amount of commutation amounting to Rs.1,90,288/- was paid to him on 17/6/2002. Even arrears of Rs.44,919/- was also paid on 17/6/2002. The gratuity amount of Rs.2,11,711/- was paid only on 18/7/2002. Petitioner has demanded interest on this delayed amount of retiral dues @18% p.a. which according to him, comes to Rs.64,274/-. 3. Respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. In the reply, it is submitted that if petitioner had been informed well in advance about the due date of retirement, it was required of him, to make efforts for settlement of his pension case and also complete his service record. It is contended that the demand of interest on the amount of GPF from 1/8/2001 to 12/11/2001 is without any basis. Though, for making other genuine payments to him, some time is likely to consume. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in making payment. It is stated that earlier the petitioner was member of CPF and subsequently option was given for GPF and pension, therefore, his CPF account was transferred to GPF and for payment of GPF, an affidavit was required, which affidavit petitioner tendered belatedly on 2/3/2002. Despite this, GPF payment was made to the petitioner in November, 2001. It is therefore submitted that petitioner himself is responsible for delayed completion of his pension case. On submission of papers, pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Pension Department and thereafter all sanctions have been made. Despite this, GPF payment was made to the petitioner in November, 2001. It is therefore submitted that petitioner himself is responsible for delayed completion of his pension case. On submission of papers, pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Pension Department and thereafter all sanctions have been made. Pension case of the petitioner was also sent to the head office which was received back with certain objections for which, same was again sent after removal of the objection with required documents and information was sent to the petitioner. There is no justification for demand of interest. 4. Having considered the case of the petitioner as well as the respondents, I find that even if what is contended by the respondents is accepted, payment of retiral dues had to be made to an employee within a reasonable time period of date of his retirement. Although the respondents have made general statement with regard to time consumed in process and have sought to shift the burden on the petitioner himself that he should have timely prepared his own pension case but no specific particulars have been given as to in what manner the delay was attributable to the petitioner and what was required of him which he did not do in time. Right of a Government servant to timely receive retiral benefits has been protected by Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which provides that the Government is under legal obligation to make payment of all retiral benefits of a retired Government servant within a period of 60 days and in any case if payment is delayed beyond 60 days, a Government servant is entitled to the interest @9% p.a. on the delayed payment. In the present case, all retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner at a belated stage much beyond the period of 60 days. Petitioner is therefore entitled to receive interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues excluding the period of 60 days. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all due post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner together with interest @ 9% per annum beyond 60 days from the date of retirement of petitioner of i.e. 31/8/2001 thus counting from 1/11/2001 till its payment to the petitioner. 6. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all due post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner together with interest @ 9% per annum beyond 60 days from the date of retirement of petitioner of i.e. 31/8/2001 thus counting from 1/11/2001 till its payment to the petitioner. 6. Compliance of this order shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******