CW 6509/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6509/06 Shyam Singh Sinsinwar Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. C.L. Saini, for petitioner Mr. G.S. Rathore, for respondents *** During pendency of petition, petitioner died and his legal heirs were brought on record under the orders of this court dt.4th January, 2008. Petitioner, who stood retired from service on 31st May, 2000 while holding the post of Deputy Manager in Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Limited is aggrieved to the extent that after revision of pay w.e.f. 1.1.99, payment of encashment of privileged leave and arrears of dearness allowance has been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. After the petitioner retired from service on 31st May, 2000, pay scales were revised retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.999 and however, all CW 6509/06 [2] other retiral benefits were paid to him including gratuity and revision of pay. But his grievance remains that once his pay stood revised retrospectively encashment of privileged leave and arrears of dearness allowance also stood revised and after its due computation, he became entitled for payment of balance amount which was due and payable to him. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and their only objection is that department of co-operative at one point of time by document Ann.R/2 dt.2nd November, 2002 while passing interim order directed the Co-operative Banks not to pass further orders with respect to encashment of privileged leave and other benefits which became due to the employee on account of revision of pay retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.99. Very submission of respondents' counsel is without merit for the reason that once the pay scale stood revised retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.99, all benefits including retiral benefits became due and payable to the employees who were in service as on 1.1.99 that certainly includes CW 6509/06 [3] retiral benefits which has been claimed by the petitioner also. It will be relevant to mention that so far as gratuity and difference of pay is concerned, that was paid to the petitioner at a later stage, it goes without saying that once the petitioner has been paid his dues, no justification was available for the respondents to withhold other retiral benefits to be more particular encashment of privileged leave and arrears of dearness allowance which were admissible to him under the rules. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of difference of encashment of privileged leave and so also arrears of dearness allowance admissible to him under the rules to the widow of deceased petitioner no.1/1 Smt. Kaushlya Sinsinwar if not paid so far. Respondents may ensure compliance within two months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6509CW06 9-1.doc