CW 1973/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1973/06 Somwati K. Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner for release of her terminal benefits with respect to service which she rendered as ANM from 27th April, 1968 to 30th August, 1983. This is not disputed that petitioner rendered service as government employee in the capacity of ANM for the period from 1968 to 1983. Thereafter, for good reasons, she has not reported for duty. Respondents in their reply have also admitted of her effective working in their office from April, 1968 to August, 1983 and averred that instant petition has been filed after 22 yrs. and delay itself is sufficient to deny discretionary relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and apart from it, counsel further submits that when absence has been admitted by the petitioner CW 1973/06 [2] herself, no further inquiry is required to be initiated against her. So far as objection of delay is concerned, it cannot be said to be fatal in the facts of instant case when a person has approached for release of terminal benefits with respect to service rendered and no third party right has been created during the intervening period and delay certainly would not defeat her rightful claim and it is always to be looked into facts of each case where no fixed standards can be laid down in this regard. As regards submission made by counsel for respondents that she remained absent thereafter from August, 1983 and has not reported for duty is sufficient for not initiating inquiry against her, is also of no substance for the reason that what was the cause for which she remained absent could have been examined only after notice being served upon her either under R.86 of RSR or after holding regular inquiry under CCA Rules, 1958, if so advised. No adverse inference could have been CW 1973/06 [3] drawn only on the premise that she has failed to report for duty after November, 1983. But, the ultimate fact remained that for the service which she rendered as government employee, the respondents have failed to pay terminal benefits to which she was entitled for under law and denial thereof, in opinion of this court, is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to release terminal benefits of the petitioner with respect to service which she rendered from 27th April, 1968 to 30th August, 1983. She may be entitled for interest from the date of filing of instant petition @9% i.e. from 6th March, 2006 till actual payment. Order be complied with within three months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1973CW06 11-11.doc