Order : 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.01.2015 and at the relevant time, a criminal case under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') was pending against the petitioner, but he was acquitted from all the charges by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 07.05.2015. Counsel submits that after acquittal, a representation was submitted by the petitioner in the office of the District Collector, Bharatpur, who vide order dated 14.01.2016, took a decision to not to file any appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner and asked the authorities to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. Counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, without any justified reason, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld and the same were not release till October and November, 2016, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @9% per annum in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that on account of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, the retiral dues could not be released and the same were released immediately after receipt of the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of interest. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired on 31.01.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is also not in dispute that a criminal case under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 was pending against the petitioner. This fact is not in dispute that he was acquitted from all the charges by the Special Judge vide order dated 07.05.2015. This fact is also not in dispute that a criminal case under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 was pending against the petitioner. This fact is not in dispute that he was acquitted from all the charges by the Special Judge vide order dated 07.05.2015. This fact is also not in dispute that the District Collector took a decision to not to file any appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner and accordingly, a direction was issued by the said Collector to the concerned authorities to release the retiral dues of the petitioner vide order dated 14.01.2016. This fact is not in dispute that that in-spite of passing of more than ten months, the payment of leave encashment made to the petitioner in the month of October and payment of gratuity and pension was made to the petitioner in the month of November. Unnecessarily, around then months delay was caused by the respondents without any justified reason, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to to get interest @9% per annum in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 w.e.f. 14.01.2016. 6. It is made clear that the respondents are supposed to comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.