1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7288/2006 (Dr. Bhagwati Lal Bhandari Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 5.9.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Manish Shishodia with Mr. Mahaveer Singh for the petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “(I) the respondents may be directed to pay final pension and/or provisional pension at par with the final pension instead of 75% to the petitioner; (ii) the respondents may further be directed to pay the provident fund outstanding in the petitioner's account; (iii)the respondents may be directed to pay all retiral benefits without deducting 2 any amount whatsoever as if the criminal case never existed against the petitioner; (iv) the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of payment.” The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension in connection with F.I.R. under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.1.1996. Thereafter the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 30.9.2005 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after acquittal, the petitioner is entitled for all retiral benefits but respondents are not releasing his retiral benefits on the ground that an appeal has been preferred by State against the judgment dated 30.9.2005 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur. In my opinion, when a competent criminal Court after due trial acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him then obviously, the petitioner is entitled for all the retiral benefits because he has been superannuated during the pendency of the criminal case against him. The ground of 3 denial of retiral benefits by the respondents is that an appeal has been filed against the acquittal by the State. In my opinion, once an employee has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him then on the ground of filing an appeal before High Court does not disentitle him to get his retiral benefits including pension. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all remaining retiral benefits to the petitioner including pension, gratuity etc. for which the petitioner is legally entitled after his superannuation. It is also clarified that in the event of allowing appeal by this Court filed against acquittal by State, the department will be at liberty to take an action in accordance with the Pension Rules, 1996. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun