SBCWP NO.1800/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1800/1997. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- January 13, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Deputy Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the government whereby, it has withheld the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. 2) Respondents in reply to the writ petition have come out with the plea that three recovery orders were passed against the petitioner under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, “Act of 1965”) and therefore the amount was withheld. 3) Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that petitioner has already preferred appeal against the SBCWP NO.1800/97. 2 three recovery orders under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 before the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal. It is further contended that government cannot withhold the amount because the orders passed under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 are executable as decree of the court and only civil court has the competence and the action of the government in withholding the amount is illegal. His argument is that in any case, if eventually, recovery is made by the Cooperative Society consequent upon dismissal of the petitioner, petitioner may also be saddled with the liability of paying interest which under the orders aforesaid has been awarded @18% p.a. It is contended that since the money is retained by the government, petitioner cannot be held liable for this part of interest. 4) Argument of the petitioner that respondents should be required to pay the aforesaid money and then the civil court should be required to chase him in the execution proceedings for recovery of the amount, cannot be accepted. Remedy of writ is an equitable remedy and money of the Society which appears to have been embezzled by the petitioner, can be recovered by whatever mode it is available to the respondents. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be liable to pay interest for duration to the extent that money was retained by the respondents which they would be required to pay SBCWP NO.1800/97. 3 to the Society, if eventually, appeals filed by the petitioner are dismissed. Eventually, if the appeals succeed, respondents would be required to pay the said money to the petitioner with interest @6% per annum. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil