CWP 9689/2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9689/2007 Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 03/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr.KC Sharma, for petitioners Mr.S.Zakawat Ali, Dy. G.C., for respondents.. Application for early hearing is allowed. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner, while holding the post of Patwari, retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30/06/2007. His grievance is that the retiral benefits, which were due and payable to him, were arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. It has come on record that a criminal case No. 38/2001 arisng out of FIR No. 216/1999 under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner in which he was finally acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction on 24/10/2002 against which Leave to Appeal No. 506/2002 was preferred by the State in this Court which was dismissed on 04/01/2007 and even after rejection of the Leave to Appeal the District Collector (Land Records), Sawaimadhopur vide its order daed 30/02/2008 (Anx. R/1) directed to make payment of provisional pension in terms of Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, CWP 9689/2007 [2] 1996 for the reason that the State Government took decision to file Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction, there was no justification available with the respondents to withhold his retiral dues which were admissible to him under law. It has been informed to this Court and even the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 1548/2008 preferred against the judgment of this Court dt. 04/01/2007 in SB Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 506/2002 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 11/12/2009. Taking note thereof, counsel submits that withholding of retiral dues is wholly arbitrary and he is entitled for interest for the outstanding dues in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules, 1996. Counsel for respondents submits that since Special Leave to Appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents were justified in withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the submission made by counsel for petitioner deserves merit for the reason that once the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction on 24/10/2002 and Leave to Appeal was dismissed by this Court on CWP 9689/2007 [3] 04/01/2007, there was no justification available to withhold the retiral dues after he being retired from service on 30/06/2007 and the delay in no manner can be attributed to the petitioner which certainly makes him entitled for interest over his retiral dues in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules, 1996. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release his retiral dues which are admissible under law alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules, 1996 from the day it became due till its actual payment. After computation, the arrears of the same shall be paid to him within three months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/9689-CW-2007-final.doc