- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3548/2006 ( Jhabarmal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 23/7/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.N.S.Charan, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, for the State. In this case petitioner is claiming his retiral benefits and prayed that respondents may be directed to make payment of his full pension, gratuity and commutation with interest to the tune of Rs.4,84,689/-. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-. After notice to respondents, reply has been filed by the department in which it is stated that pension case of petitioner was not finalised due to pendency of inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Now, petitioner has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him vide order dated 14/6/2004 and just after the decision of inquiry on 24/6/2004, respondents sent a letter to the petitioner calling for required documents for the purpose of granting full pension and other benefits. It is further stated in reply that full pension and other benefits were released in favour of petitioner on 29/7/2004. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner is objecting to this and submits that still some retiral benefits are due and he has also prayed for interest in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors vs. O.P.Srivastava & Ors reported in 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC page 464. I have perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment, it is observed by the Division Bench that: “The inquiry proceedings ultimately were concluded on 2.7.97 and in para 6 of the judgment the Tribunal has narrated the admitted factual position stating that the respondent had been exonerated and no charge could be proved against him as it is observed by the inquiry officer that the charge sheet was baseless and it was held that if an opportunity of hearing would have been given to the respondent before issuing the charge sheet, it was just possible that no charge sheet would have been issued. Immediately after the inquiry was concluded resulting into exoneration of the respondent, the amount of gratuity and commutation pension was released on 6th July, 1997 and the payment of leave encashment benefits was also released vide order dated 4th July 1997.” - 3 - In my opinion, in the present case no such circumstances are in existence which were in existence in case of O.P.Srivastava (supra). In the above referred case, Tribunal allowed interest to the employee on the ground that he was charge sheeted on baseless grounds and before issuing charge sheet no opportunity of hearing was given to him in which he was likely to be exonerated prior to initiating inquiry against him. Here in this case facts are altogether different, therefore, judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case for grant of interest. However, if any retiral benefits are still due then petitioner is free to file representation and apprise the respondents for releasing the same. Upon filing such representation, respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of filing representation. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pb