CWP 391/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 391/2008 V.N. Mathur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 22/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. DC Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Hament Mathur, Deputy Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that even after his retirement on 31st March, 1999, his retiral benefits are arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. The petitioner entered into service, as alleged in the petition, in 1973 as work charge Store Munshi. It appears from the record that when he was deprived of his consideration for promotion on the post of Supervisor, a dispute was raised through a reference made by the appropriate Government and the learned Industrial Tribunal in ITR No. 33/1988 vide its award dt. 19th April, 1995 answered the reference in affirmative and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner to be promoted on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 03/06/1978, however, he will be entitled for salary of the post of Supervisor from 17th May, 1979. The operative part of the award dt. 19th April, 1995, which is relevant for CWP 391/08 [2] the purpose, is reproduced as under:- “'' ूाथȸ ौिमक वी.एन.माथुर ः टोर मुÛ शी को उनके िनयोजक Ʈारा सुपरवाइजर के पद पर Ǒदनांक 3.6.78 से पदोÛ नत न Ǒकया जाना अनुिचत एवं अवैध है अत: ूाथȸ 3.6.78 से सुपरवाइजर के पद पर पदोÛ नित पाने का अिधकारȣ है और वह उसके तमाम लाभ भी पाने का अिधकारȣ होगा। ूाथȸ Ǒदनांक 17.5.79 से सुपरवाइजर के पद का वेतन व लाभ पाने का अिधकारȣ है।'' While he was in service, a criminal case bearing No. 180/2002 was instituted against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in which he was finally acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt. 2nd August, 2007 (Anx.2) and after the order of acquittal, there was no impediment in withholding his retiral dues to which he was entitled for under law. It is not the case of the respondents that other than the criminal case instituted against the petitioner (supra), there was any other departmental or judicial enquiry pending against him. However, under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 pending judicial enquiry, the retiral dues could be withheld but still the employee is entitled for provisional pension during pendency of the judicial/departmental enquiry if pending before retirement. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent CWP 391/08 [3] court of jurisdiction, there was no justification available for the respondents to withhold his retiral dues which obviously includes pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. and such action of the respondents is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for respondents submits that earlier the benefits could not be released because of the pendency of the judicial enquiry and that has been decided upon passing of the acquittal order dt. 02nd August, 2007 but there is nothing on record to show as to why his retiral benefits remained withheld even after judgment of acquittal passed by the competent court on 02nd August, 2007 and as already observed, there is no other judicial/departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner other than the criminal case referred to above (supra) in that too he was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner at least after the order of acquittal, in no manner, can be said to be legally justified and was it in violation of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. It maybe relevant to clarify that while making fixations and CWP 391/08 [4] computation of his retiral dues, the respondents shall take note of that the award of which reference has been made (supra) dt. 29th April, 1995 according to which he stood promoted as Supervisor w.e.f. 03/06/1978 and became entitled for salary of the post from 17/05/1979 and his last drawn salary on the date of retirement would be of the post of Supervisor which requires to be noticed while computing the retiral dues to which he became entitled for. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the retiral dues of the petitioner and arrears after its computation be paid to him within three months and that must carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 02nd August, 2007 till its actual payment. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-391-CW-2008-final.doc