CW 11975/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11975/2008 Mohd. Saleem Khan Versus State & Ors Date of Order ::: 25/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Banwari Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel, for respondents Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for Mr. SK Gupta, for respondent-4 At joint request, matter has been heard finally at admission stage. Petitioner while holding the post of Jt. Director (Education) retired from service on attaining age of superannuation in July, 2007; however, his retiral dues were withheld despite the fact that there was no disciplinary/judicial inquiry either initiated or pending against him, which has compelled him to approach this Court by way of instant petition. In the reply, it has been averred that for an alleged misconduct which the petitioner committed in discharge of his duties while in service, departmental inquiry was contemplated and charge sheet was prepared and sent to the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan but the fact remains that disciplinary inquiry has not been initiated against the petitioner, as yet. However, a letter dt.14/05/2010 of the Department of Personnel has been placed before CW 11975/08 //2// this Court for perusal in which it has been averred that the petitioner has already retired from service and four years have rolled by now, therefore, no inquiry could be initiated in view of R.7(2)(b) of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 ("Pension Rules") - according to which an inquiry could be initiated in respect of an event if having taken place more than four years prior to such institution. Taking note whereof, the Department of Personnel informed the Education Department that what has been alleged of misconduct against petitioner pertained to beyond period of four years; as such disciplinary inquiry could not be initiated and matter may be dropped. Counsel for petitioner submits that there is no justification having come forward on record as an impediment in withholding retiral dues of petitioner, which makes him further entitled to claim interest over reitral dues admissible U/r 89 of Pension Rules, 1996. In instant case, there is no judicial/disciplinary inquiry initiated or pending against petitioner and what has been alleged by respondents in their reply is beyond a period of four years which would in no manner hold the respondents competent U/r 7 (2)(b) of Pension Rules, 1996 to initiate any such judicial or disciplinary inquiry; in such CW 11975/08 //3// circumstances, withholding of retiral dues of petitioner is wholly un-warranted and that makes him further entitled for claim of interest over delayed payment of retiral dues as admissible U/r 89 of Pension Rules, 1996. Submission made by respondents in their reply with regard to disciplinary action being initiated against petitioner, suffice it to say that the petitioner once stood retired from service in July 2007 and no judicial/ disciplinary inquiry was initiated or pending on the date of retirement; while for taking an action against an employee U/r 7 of Pension Rules, 1996, condition precedent is to seek sanction of the Governor and nexus of the alleged misconduct with reference to a period of four years prior to the date of retirement, has to be established. However, in a case of present petitioner, charge sheet has not yet been issued even after more than three years having rolled by now since his retirement in July, 2007; and that apart, even as per letter dt.14/05/2010 of the Department of Personnel placed for perusal in course of hearing, the misconduct alleged against petitioner related in respect of an event having taken place more than four years before his retirement and taking note whereof, the DOP advised to drop the proceedings; in such circumstances, action CW 11975/08 //4// of respondents in withholding terminal benefits of petitioner without there being any disciplinary/judicial inquiry merely on the premise of its contemplation despite it having not been initiated either on the date of retirement or thereafter and despite having no prior sanction of Governor U/r 7(2)(b) of Pension Rules for initiation of such proceedings, is arbitrary and without application of mind. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to release retiral dues of petitioner in accordance with pension Rules, 1996. After due computation of pensionary benefits, arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum as admissible U/r 89 of Pension Rules from the date of it having become due till actual payment whereof be paid to the petitioner. All exercise to comply with aforesaid direction be completed within three months from today. No order as to costs. Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/ 11975CW2008Aug25Ald-Pens.doc