1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3761/2006 (Pooran Mal Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) Date of order : 16.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mrs. Pramila Acharya, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents for releasing his retiral benefits with all consequential benefits. Further, it is prayed that the order dated 13.8.1998 Annexure-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. I have perused the entire pleadings of the case. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Administrative Officer on urgent temporary basis on 2 18.6.1998 and that order was cancelled on 13.8.1998, during this period, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.136/1998 filed against him for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. The petitioner was released on bail on 17.3.1999 and later on after attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from service on 31.3.1999. In my opinion, there is no ground for quashing the order dated 13.8.1998 Annexure-4 whereby the petitioner's promotion dated 18.6.1998 for promotion on temporary basis on the post of administrative Officer was cancelled. because this promotion was only on urgent temporary basis, therefore, the relief for quashing the order of promotion is rejected. Further, the petitioner is claiming his retiral benefits on the ground that he was facing criminal trial for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. in which he was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions case No.27/1998 vide judgment dated 20.5.1999. It is further submitted that against the said judgment an appeal being SB Criminal Appeal No.704/1999 was preferred by the State before this Court and the said appeal was also dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16.1.2004. Against the said judgment, a special appeal was preferred before Hon'ble Apex Court, that too was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court 3 vide judgment dated 16.1.2006, therefore, when the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges by the Sessions Court then his retiral benefits were required to be released soon after his acquittal from the trial Court but the respondents illegally detained retiral benefits knowingly well that the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges levelled against him by the trial Court, therefore, the action of the respondents for not releasing his retiral benefits is totally illegal. On the other hand, learned Govt. Counsel submits that against the acquittal, an appeal was preferred before this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the retiral benefits were detained by the respondents and not paid to the petitioner under the Rules of 1996. In my opinion, denial of retiral benefits after acquittal is not justified. Obviously, a government employee is entitled for all service benefits and mere filing of appeal against the acquittal does not confer any right or jurisdiction to the State to detain the retiral benefits. However, in this case, the said benefits were detained only on the ground that an appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal. In this case, against the acquittal of petitioner by the trial Court, not only the appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed 4 by this Court but by Hon'ble Apex Court also, therefore, the judgment of trial Court is maintained upto Hon'ble Apex Court and the respondents have illegally detained the retiral benefits of the petitioner after his acquittal from the trial Court. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no ground left with the respondents to detain the retiral benefits of the petitioner after his acquittal by the trial Court. In view of aforesaid fact, I hold that a Government employee is entitled for his retiral benefits after acquittal from trial Court and denial is not permissible on the ground that appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. At this juncture, it is submitted by learned Govt. Counsel that now the retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. In my opinion, the respondents were under obligation to release the retiral benefits after acquittal from the trial Court but admittedly it has not been done. Meaning thereby, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not paid since 1999 to 2007. Therefore, for this illegal action, obviously the 5 petitioner is entitled for interest under the Rules of 1996. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner and to pay him interest @ 9% per annum with all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun