Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents for issuance of a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) and release of all consequential retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lab Boy by order dated 09.04.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.775–1025/- and her services were confirmed from 20.04.1990 by order dated 09.05.1991. Initially posted at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sri Karanpur, she was subsequently transferred to Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Gajsinghpur by order dated 03.03.1997. 2.1. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 07.11.2015, and accordingly retired on 30.11.2015. By order dated 22.07.2014, the respondent authorities directed submission of service books and pension papers of retiring employees; however, in the said order, her post was erroneously shown as Class IV employee. This inadvertent error was later rectified by order dated 01.12.2014, wherein her correct designation as Lab Boy was confirmed. 2.2. Despite clear directions and correction, respondent No.5 failed to initiate preparation of her pension case within the statutory period prescribed under Rule 83(4) of the RAJASTHAN PENSION RULES , 1996, which mandates completion and forwarding of pension papers at least six months prior to retirement. Instead, the pension papers were deliberately delayed. Respondent no.5 allegedly demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner and, upon refusal, threatened adverse action. On the day of retirement, the petitioner was compelled to sign incomplete pension documents under time pressure, whereafter her post was tampered with i.e. changed from Lab Boy to Class IV employee. 2.3. Consequently, the pension department raised objections dated 09.12.2015 and 19.12.2015 regarding discrepancies in designation and pay scale, to which the petitioner duly responded on 26.12.2015. Further correspondence occurred concerning her photograph, as she was a widow. Nevertheless, the respondent no.5 forwarded the pension case belatedly on 07.12.2015, resulting in issuance of an incorrect Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 12.02.2016, reflecting her post as Class IV employee instead of Lab Boy. 2.4. Despite multiple representations and even a direction from the Director of Pension dated 16.05.2016 to rectify her post and issue a revised PPO, no corrective action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner has been deprived of her rightful pensionary and retiral benefits till date, receiving only her GPF amount. 2.4. Despite multiple representations and even a direction from the Director of Pension dated 16.05.2016 to rectify her post and issue a revised PPO, no corrective action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner has been deprived of her rightful pensionary and retiral benefits till date, receiving only her GPF amount. The deliberate delay and misrepresentation by respondent no.5, contrary to the Pension Rules, demonstrate mala fide intent and administrative negligence, directly causing financial and mental hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, she is entitled to correction of her designation, issuance of a revised PPO, release of all consequential benefits, and interest for the period of unlawful delay. Hence the instant Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the RAJASTHAN PENSION RULES , 1996, pension papers are required to be processed two years prior to retirement and finalized six months before retirement, as mandated under Rule 83(4). Despite this statutory requirement, Respondent No. 5, with evident mala fide intent and to harass the petitioner for refusing illegal demands, deliberately delayed the processing of pension papers. The documents were ultimately submitted only after the petitioner’s retirement on 07.12.2015, resulting in the denial of her retiral dues. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest under Rule 89 for the unwarranted delay. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed and served as a Lab Boy. Although her post was incorrectly recorded as a Class IV employee in one order, this error was rectified by the order dated 01.12.2014. Notwithstanding this correction, Respondent No. 5 intentionally misrepresented the petitioner’s post as Class IV in the pension papers, leading to the issuance of an incorrect Pension Payment Order (PPO) and the consequent stoppage of her pension. Such conduct was beyond the respondent’s authority and executed with mala fide intent. Despite repeated representations by the petitioner for the correction of records and issuance of a revised PPO, the respondents remained inert, providing only a single perfunctory response. This inaction amounts to arbitrary and negligent conduct, in clear violation of their statutory duties. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 5 deliberately altered the pension documents after obtaining the petitioner’s signatures on partially completed forms on the day of retirement, thereby manipulating records and deliberately delaying submission. Such actions constitute willful misconduct, warranting the personal recovery of interest from the respondent. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 5 deliberately altered the pension documents after obtaining the petitioner’s signatures on partially completed forms on the day of retirement, thereby manipulating records and deliberately delaying submission. Such actions constitute willful misconduct, warranting the personal recovery of interest from the respondent. Counsel further submitted that under Article 300-A of the Constitution, pension constitutes the property of an employee, which cannot be withheld without lawful authority. The denial of pension due to the intentional misconduct of Respondent No. 5 is, therefore, unconstitutional and illegal. Moreover, the post of Lab Boy is hierarchically superior to that of a Class IV employee, and at no point was any order of reversion issued. Consequently, treating the petitioner as a Class IV employee is ultra vires, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as an alternate and efficacious remedy is available before the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal, the competent forum to adjudicate service-related disputes. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of fundamental or statutory rights to justify invocation of Article 226. The pensionary benefits were processed strictly in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and no illegality or arbitrariness was committed. The respondents have acted bona fide and within the parameters of law to safeguard the state exchequer. Hence, the writ petition is premature, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and meticulous perusal of the entire record, it emerges that the material facts are substantially undisputed. The petitioner was duly appointed as a Lab Boy vide order dated 09.04.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.775–1025/-, and her services were confirmed w.e.f. 20.04.1990 by order dated 09.05.1991. Initially, she was posted at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sri Karanpur, and was later transferred to Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Gajsinghpur by order dated 03.03.1997. 6.1. The petitioner was duly appointed as a Lab Boy vide order dated 09.04.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.775–1025/-, and her services were confirmed w.e.f. 20.04.1990 by order dated 09.05.1991. Initially, she was posted at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sri Karanpur, and was later transferred to Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Gajsinghpur by order dated 03.03.1997. 6.1. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the Government’s policy decision, the sanctioned posts of Laboratory Boy (Pay Scale No. 02) in secondary schools were withdrawn vide order dated 23.10.1997, in compliance with the communications from the Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner, the Education Department, Jaipur, and the Finance Department. As a consequence, the incumbents holding such posts were declared surplus and provisionally adjusted against converted Class IV posts (Pay Scale No. 02), with the explicit condition that they would continue on such posts until they were re-adjusted against future vacancies of Laboratory Boys in senior higher secondary schools, promoted, or retired whichever occurred earlier. The said order also stipulated that these employees would continue to draw pay in Pay Scale No.02 along with admissible increments and allowances as per rules. 6.2. The aforementioned directions clearly establish that the adjustment of Laboratory Boys on converted Class IV posts was purely temporary and conditional in nature, intended only for administrative exigency. The petitioner, therefore, continued to hold her substantive post of Lab Boy, as evident from her appointment order, confirmation order, and even the retirement order dated 01.12.2014, wherein her designation was explicitly recorded as Lab Boy. Thus, her legal and substantive status remained unchanged, and she could not have been treated as a Class IV employee for the purpose of determining her pensionary entitlements. 6.3. It is apparent that Respondent No. 5 failed to comply with Rule 83(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, by forwarding the pension papers after the petitioner’s retirement on 07.12.2015. Further, the allegation that the respondent altered the petitioner’s post from Lab Boy to Class IV after obtaining signatures on partially filled forms has not been rebutted. Such conduct demonstrates mala fide intent and administrative misconduct, and while it is noted as an act that cannot be appreciated, the Court expresses no opinion or direction regarding any action against Respondent No.5. The petitioner’s grievance is thus genuine and substantiated, and the actions of the respondents are inconsistent with principles of administrative fairness. Such conduct demonstrates mala fide intent and administrative misconduct, and while it is noted as an act that cannot be appreciated, the Court expresses no opinion or direction regarding any action against Respondent No.5. The petitioner’s grievance is thus genuine and substantiated, and the actions of the respondents are inconsistent with principles of administrative fairness. 6.4. It is an established principle under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India that pension is a vested property right of an employee and cannot be withheld or curtailed except by authority of law. In the present case, the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of her lawful retiral dues owing to the deliberate and negligent conduct of the concerned respondent. Even though her service record and retirement order unequivocally describe her as a Lab Boy, her pension has been wrongly sanctioned in the pay scale applicable to a Class IV employee, resulting in financial loss and undue hardship. 6.5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s grievance is genuine and fully substantiated by the record. The respondents, particularly respondent No.5, acted in a manner contrary to the spirit of administrative fairness, and such action cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to: (i) Issue a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the petitioner treating her as Lab Boy within a period of forty (40) days from the date of receipt of this order; (ii) Forward the corrected PPO to the Pension Department forthwith for necessary action; and (iii) Pay the differential amount of pension and other consequential retiral benefits to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of her retirement till the actual payment. (iv) The Court records that the conduct of Respondent No. 5 cannot be appreciated, but takes no view on any departmental consequences. 8. The stay petition and all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.