CW 8548/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8548/06 Ziaullah Ansari Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 21/10/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Pradeep Singh, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner claiming retiral benefits which became due and payable to him after attaining age of superannuation on 31st July, 2004. Petitioner served in the office of respondents as Sound Operator and joined service on 21st July, 1975 vide order Ann.2 dt.22nd December, 1975 and stood retired from service at the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2004, but retiral benefits to which he is entitled for under law were not released by the respondents, hence petitioner approached this court by filing instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy raised in the instant petition stands examined by this court in CW No.3744/95, Babu Lal Verma Vs. State & Ors., decided on 2nd September, 2002 – Special Appeal No.913/02 preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed on 16th CW 8548/06 [2] February, 2004 and so also CW No.8175/02, Ram Kishore Sharma Vs. State & Anr., decided on 7th February, 2006 and in compliance of the judgment of this court those who approached this court retiral benefits have been extended by the State government granting them the benefit of pension and other retiral dues to which they became entitled for under law. Relevant part of judgment dt.2nd September, 2002 is reproduced as under: “Consequently, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to grant pension, commutation of pension, and gratuity on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner on the date of his retirement i.e. July 31, 1994. The amount paid to the petitioner in lieu of CPF shall however be adjusted while calculating retiral benefits. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within 90 days failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of retirement i.e. July 31, 1994 till the actual payment is made to the petitioner. Costs easy.” Counsel for respondents submits that once the petitioner has been paid provident fund as evident from Ann.10 [Rs.13,510/-] has been duly accepted by him as such was not entitled for pension even if it is admissible under the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules. This court has even taken note of the dispute raised by the respondents in regard to payment of CW 8548/06 [3] provident fund made to the respective employees and considered that such amount towards CPF shall be duly adjusted while computing retiral benefits and after due adjustment, pension and other retiral dues to which one is entitled for be released. Since the controversy has already been examined by this court, it does not remain res integra. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to release retiral dues to the petitioner including pension after adjustment of CPF amount which has been received by the petitioner while computing retiral benefits admissible under law. Respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the order within 90 days. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8548CW06 21-10.doc