JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, a part of the relief claimed by the appellant for payment of interest has been denied. 3. In nutshell, facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the appeal are that the appellant, who was originally working as Laboratory Assistant, was later on absorbed on the post of Gram Sewak cum Ex-officiating Secretary on 08.11.2000. A dispute with regard to grant of pay on account of absorption on a post carrying lower pay scale arose. The appellant approached learned Single Judge by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5400/2015 decided on 12.04.2017 held that the present appellant, on parity, is also entitled to the same relief with regard to protection of pay and an order was passed in favour of the appellant. The direction was accordingly issued to the Government that the appellant's case will also be considered on the same lines as in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). However, as far as claim of interest, which was made by the appellant in the petition, was disallowed. It is this part of the order which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as the consequence of the direction issued by learned Single Judge with regard to the pay to which the appellant was legally entitled to and in respect of which declaration was made by this court will have necessary effect on retiral benefits, which were given to the appellant and therefore, on the additional amount, which is payable to the appellant towards retiral benefits, an interest is liable to be paid under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). According to learned counsel for the appellant, this issue has also been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1576/2019 decided on 19.04.2021. 5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this issue has also been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1576/2019 decided on 19.04.2021. 5. Therefore, it is contended that the interest as admissible to the appellant under Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 in terms of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma (supra) be also awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submit that as far as claim of interest is concerned, that claim was not allowed by this court in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). The appellant claimed parity and sought directions similar to that given in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). As in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra), no interest was granted, the appellant could not have claimed interest. The other submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there are various objections with regard to excess payment made to the appellant. Therefore, for that objection also, the appellant could not have claimed any interest and all that could be paid to the appellant was related to arrears of pay to which the appellant is entitled in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. Undisputedly, the appellant has been held entitled to higher benefits of pay in view of the judgment of this court passed in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). This aspect has not been disputed by the respondents. 9. However, the question, which arises for consideration, is whether in respect of retiral benefits, the appellant is entitled to interest as mandate of law leaves no discretion in the hands of Court to deny such an interest. 10. Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under: “89. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondents. 9. However, the question, which arises for consideration, is whether in respect of retiral benefits, the appellant is entitled to interest as mandate of law leaves no discretion in the hands of Court to deny such an interest. 10. Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under: “89. Interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits: (1) If the payment of retiral benefits has been authorised after 60 days from the date when its payment became due and it is established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this chapter or elsewhere in these rules, interest @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month preceding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorised.” (2) Every case of delayed payment of retiral benefits shall, suo moto, be examined by the Head of office and shall be forwarded to the Administrative Department through the Head of the Department and where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of retiral benefits was caused on account of administrative lapse or inaction, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue sanction for the payment of interest to the Director, Pension Department. (3) In all cases, where payment of interest has been authorised, the Administrative Department concerned shall fix responsibility and take disciplinary action under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 against the Government servants who is/are found responsible for the delay in the payment of retiral benefits and shall recover the loss caused to the Government due to payment of interest to the pensioner from the Government servants held responsible. (4) In the order for payment of interest, the Administrative Department shall also mention the names of officers/officials responsible for delay and the amount of interest recoverable from him/them. (5) If as a result of Government's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant, the amount of retiral benefits already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of: (a) grant of emoluments higher than the emoluments on which retiral benefits, already paid, were determined. (b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior, to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned. (b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior, to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned. No interest on the arrears of retiral benefits shall be paid. (6) In case any delay is caused in the Pension Department, responsibility shall be fixed for such delay and suitable action taken against such erring officials to recover the interest paid to the pensioner.” 11. The aforesaid Rule ordains that if payment of retiral benefits has been authorized after 60 days from the date when its payment became due and it is established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this Chapter or elsewhere in the Rules, interest @ 9% per annum will have to be paid. Payment of interest under Rule 89 in respect of delayed payment of retiral benefits is statutory mandate and not the matter of discretion. Once the appellant is entitled to certain benefits as component of retiral benefits as a consequence of declaration of pay at the appropriate level in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra), the additional payments, which have to be made as component of retiral benefits, would definitely carry interest @ 9% p.a. perforce statutory mandate and that has to be awarded to the appellant. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that learned Single Judge was not justified in law in denying interest. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to work out interest on the components of retiral benefits to which the appellant is entitled to on declaration of his rights and entitlement under the order of the learned Single Judge in the matter of his pay upon absorption as Gram Sewak. The appellant being a retired employee should be paid interest within outer limit of four months and not beyond that in any case. 13. Though, learned counsel for the respondents sought to raise an issue of excess payment to the appellant, this appeal does not involve any such issue, therefore, we are not inclined to make any comment on the same. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.