JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite he retired from service on 31st October, 2005, his retiral benefits, which were due and payable to him under law, were arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. 2. Petitioner initially joined service as Clerk in Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 21st March, 1970 and while holding the said post, petitioner stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation in October, 2005. Under the relevant Rules, the petitioner was entitled for gratuity & encashment of privileged leave as retiral dues, but the same was not paid to him despite legal notice being served. Hence, he approached this court by filing instant petition. 3. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that all benefits, which were due and payable to CW 1458/06 petitioner as claimed by him, initially were withheld for the reason that while he was working as ad hoc Branch Manager Kama Branch, he sanctioned certain loan in violation of terms & conditions of the Bank which has caused financial loss to the Bank and since it could not have been settled by the petitioner despite notice being served, retiral dues were initially withheld, but later on gratuity was paid to him vide Pay Order dated 26th April, 2006 [Ann.R3/7] and counsel has also informed this court that so far as encashment of privileged leave is concerned, amount of Rs.2,10,930/- was also paid to him on 29th March, 2007 duly signed receipt of the petitioner has been placed for perusal of this court. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that delay, which has been caused in making payment of retiral dues, in no manner can be attributed to him. In absence whereof, he is certainly entitled for interest which is admissible to him under law. 5. Counsel for respondents submits that since the petitioner has not come out with any explanation despite notice being served immediately after his retirement for settlement of loan advanced by him without taking proper security i.e. depositing original title deeds from the borrower it was initially withheld, but immediately after taking legal advice, the same was paid to him. The fact ultimate remains that whatever the reason may be for withholding his retiral dues, but that cannot be attributed to the petitioner in any manner. The fact ultimate remains that whatever the reason may be for withholding his retiral dues, but that cannot be attributed to the petitioner in any manner. It will be relevant to mention that if at all petitioner has committed any misconduct in discharge of his duties in violating terms & conditions as alleged by the respondents, no inquiry of any nature was ever initiated. In absence whereof, justification forwarded by the respondents for delay in payment is not acceptable and in opinion of this court, delay which has been caused by the respondents in making payment of retiral dues certainly carry interest in terms of R.89 of Rules, 1951. 6. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is under an obligation to pay gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable and if amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), employer is under legal obligation to pay interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time. 7. Since there is no such rate of interest available before this court, but under R.89 of the Rules, 1951, the State Government has fixed 9% interest to be paid to retired personnel on account of delay in payment of retiral dues, accordingly, this court considers proper to grant 9% interest on delay in payment of retiral dues. 8. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to pay interest @9% on the retiral dues paid to the petitioner from the date it became due till its actual payment. Respondents may ensure compliance within three months. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed *******