SBCWP No.1253/05. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1253/2005. Banwari Lal Vs. The Alwar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Date of order : 24/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ By post. Shri R.K. Sharma for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was registered on the basis of letter issued by this Court. In the writ petition, petitioner Banwari Lal stated that he retired from the services of the respondent-bank as Acting Branch Manager. His pay fixation was made by the order issued by the Bank Administrator District Collector Alwar dated 30/9/2003 on the recommendation of the respondent-Bank dated 2/9/2003 w.e.f. 1/1/1999 in Rs.8515/- per month. On 18/1/1999, his pay was increased to Rs.8855/- after granting him annual grade increment. On 18/1/2000, his pay was increased to Rs.9195 and on 18/1/2001, to Rs.9535/-. He retired from service on 31/1/2001. Pay fixation order and order by which increments were sanctioned vide order dated 7/11/2002 has been placed on record. It is contended that he was to receive first installment of arrears on 31/3/2004, second in July 2004 and third in March 2005 but such arrears have not been paid nor the SBCWP No.1253/05. 2 first Gratuity has been revised in terms of the Revised Pay Scales. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay all his arrears. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has argued that there were certain irregularities during petitioner's tenure as Branch Manager Behror. It was alleged that while working as Branch Manager, he tried to make correction of the entries in accounts of the Society while using the C.B. (correct balance) in the loan account of one Revoli G.S.S. of Rs.34,600/-. Branch Manager of Behror vide letter dated 12/2/2005 has informed that there is balance difference of Rs.22,250/- during tenure of the petitioner. For this reason, amount of Branch Manager Alwar Khem Chand in addition to the petitioner has also been withheld because period of irregularity was overlapping during the tenure of both of them. It is contended that despite making enquiry which was still pending, it was not possible to exactly fix the liability to satisfy the alleged amount. Petitioner was required to furnish indemnity bond of Rs.22,250/- so that arrears should be paid. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be dismissed. Upon considering the facts of the case and submission made, I find that in the first place, the alleged irregularities pertained to the period of two Branch Managers, i.e. Khem Chand and petitioner Banwari Lal. Secondly, Petitioner, who stood retired on 31/1/2001 but despite lapse of almost a decade, the SBCWP No.1253/05. 3 respondent-bank is not fixing the responsibility. The respondent cannot be at this stage be allowed time to justify withholding of amount due to the petitioner. The legitimate dues of the petitioner can be withheld only by due process of law. Admittedly, no such responsibility has so far been fixed in any enquiry proceedings known to law, such an amount cannot be withheld for an indefinite period. Condition that petitioner should furnish an indemnity bond cannot be applied because almost a decade has gone by since he retired and so far there is no possibility of finality of the enquiry which was said to be pending since 2005 when petitioner filed writ petition. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner all the arrears together with interest 6% p.a. without insisting of production of indemnity bond. A copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner for his information. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondent-bank. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil