HARDAYAL REHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction to quash I the charge-sheet Annex 1 issued by respondents against the petitioner and drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and release all pensionary benefits to him. The petitioner was serving on the post of Sanitary Inspector-cum-Food Inspector with respondent department. After having s rendered unblamished service of 39 years, petitioner was retired from service on 30.9.2000 after attaining the age of superannuation but just few days before his superannuation, a charge-sheet was issued to him vide Annex. 1 dated 19.9.2000. He approached/represented to various authorities including the Honourable Lokayukt. A reply was filed before Lokayukt by the respondent 10 department to the complaint made by petitioner wherein the department in clear terms admitted that office of Chief Medical & Health Officer. Pali and the Director of Health and PFA department with biased view, initiated proceedings and charge-sheet was served to the petitioner 'The respondent State by reply affidavit stated that petitioner was given target in the year 1999 and he failed to achieve the target assigned to him regarding the collection of food samples. However, by order Annex. 8, the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner vide Annex. 1 was dropped on 5.12.2002 and thereafter, respondents have sanctioned the pension in favour of petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retiral benefits including gratuity, PPF and pension have not been paid till 3.10.2003 anti only payment came to be paid to petitioner is on 3.10.2003; whereas petitioner retired on 30.9 2000. The State Government issued a circular No.F.15(3)FD/(Rules)/97 dated 24.2.2001 which provides that if the retiral benefits are not sanctioned/paid even after expiry of 60 days from the date of retirement invariably, unless there are exceptional circumstances to act otherwise, the pensioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the due date till actual payment is made. In the instant case, it is obvious that in order to harass the petitioner a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner just few days before his retirement for extraneous consideration and the action of the concerned officials was obviously biased and suffers from malice which is evident form the report filed by them before Honourable Lokayukt. The petitioner has not contributed anything for delay of pension and other retiral benefits. In the circumstances, therefore, petitioner is entitled for interest for delayed payment from the date of his retirement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this court rendered in SBCW Pet. No. 255/2002 (Balveer Chand Vs. State & Anr.) decided on 21.10.2002 wherein this court held as under: