Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tulsa Ram Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40899) on 28 November, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:40899]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5961/2022
Tulsa Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Surta Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of New Bazar, Dhorimanna, Gudhamalani, Barmer
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Pension And
Pensioners, Welfare Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
3. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 28/11/2023 The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent- department. An FIR came to be filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the petitioner before the competent criminal court and the petitioner was tried for the offences by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur. The charges were not proved against the petitioner and therefore, vide judgment dated 31.03.2009, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. (Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:40:48 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:40899] (2 of 4) [CW-5961/2022] The grievances of the petitioner are that despite the fact that he has been acquitted by the competent criminal court, his due retiral benefits including gratuity has not been released by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, prayed that the respondents may be directed to release full pension along with due retiral benefits including gratuity in favour of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the State has preferred an appeal against the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the competent criminal court, exonerating the petitioner from the charges.
Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'RSR') a government servant is entitled for payment of arrears of pay and allowances including retiral benefits only if he has been fully exonerated or the suspension is found to be wholly unjustified, however, it is submitted that since an appeal is pending before this court against the order dated 31.03.2009 rendered by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits in terms of Rule 54(2) of RSR, till the appeal is finally decided by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at bar, this Court finds that the dispute involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by this Court in the case of "Shyam Sunder Mal Mehta vs. Rajasthan High Court", [RLW 2000(4) Raj. 118]".
(Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:40:48 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:40899] (3 of 4) [CW-5961/2022] In Shyam Sunder's case (supra), a Bench of this Court while interpreting the provision of Rule 54(2) & (3) of RSR, held:
"6. We are of the opinion that when no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of charges levelled against him and the same was dropped and order of compulsory retirement made in the public interest on dropping of the charges was also set aside and the petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in normal course, no presumption can be raised in the absence of any finding that suspension, which was revoked without holding any enquiry, was justified or fell outside the category of suspension which was wholly unjustified to take out the case out of sub rule (2). Such a period has to be governed only under sub rule (2) of Rule 54 quoted above and he is entitled to full salary and emoluments for the period as if he has not been suspended and is entitled to pay full pay and dearness allowances to which he would have been entitled had not been suspended..."
In the present case, inadvertently, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent criminal court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already retired from the services and his retiral benefits have been withheld only on account of pendency of the appeal against the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur.
In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent criminal court, the respondents cannot be permitted to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner on the pretext that the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before this Court.
The stand taken by the respondents before this Court is wholly unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release pensionary benefits including gratuity in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months (Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:40:48 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:40899] (4 of 4) [CW-5961/2022] from today. The petitioner is also held entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% on the retiral benefits from the date they became due as the delay is not attributable to him and the same has occurred due to inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities without any authority of law. It is however, made clear that the demand of retiral benefits shall be subject to the final order of the appeal preferred by the State against the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 269-KshamaD/-
(Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:40:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)