SOHAN MERTIYA Vs. DIST JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 26. 4. 2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to release the post retirement benefits along with interest @ 24% per annum.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That at the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Munshrim in the office of respondent No. 1 (the Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur) and the retired on 30. 11. 2003 after attaining the age of superannuation through order dated 8. 9. 2003 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur ). ii) That further case of the petitioner is that when he retired through order dated 8. 9. 2003 (Annex. 1), at that time, no departmental enquiry was pending against him, but as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, he was not given all post retirement benefits by the respondent without any fault on the part of the petitioner. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the post retirement benefits have not been given by the respondents on the pretext that while he was posted as Reader in the Essential Commodities Court, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), some articles were not handed over by him so far. iv) Further case of the petitioner is the through order dated 15. 12. 89, he was sent on deputation to the officer of respondent No. 2 (Essential Commodities Court, Jodhpur) and thereafter by order dated 6. 10. 2001, he was again sent to the office of respondent No. 1 (Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur ). v) Further case of the petitioner is that at the time when he was relieved from the office of respondent No. 2 (Essential Commodities Court, Jodhpur), he had prepared a list of items which were handed over to him and he handed over all the articles which were entrusted to him and therefore, no item was lying with him. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that through communication dated 17. 11. 2003 (Annex. 2) written by the respondent No. 1 (Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur) to the petitioner, he was asked to hand over all the articles which were taken by him at the time of taking over of charge in the office of respondent No. 2 (Essential Commodities Court, Jodhpur ). Along with the letter dt. 17. 11. 2003, a letter dt. 13. 11. 2003 written by the respondent No. (Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Jodhpur) was also sent to the petitioner. vii) That the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22. 11. 2003 in which he has stated that the items mentioned in the letter dated 13. 11. 2003 were never entrusted to him no they were in his power and possession and therefore, the was no question of handing over the same. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that because of that fact, no objection certificate (NOC) was not issued by the respondent No. 2 (Essential Commodities Court) which resulted into denial of entire post retirement benefits and apart from this, it has further been submitted by the petitioner that even provisional pension as per Rule 86 of the Rules of 1996 has not been paid to him. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that when he was relieved from the office of reader of respondent No. 2 (Essential Commodities Court, Jodhpur), Last Pay Certificate dated 23. 10. 2001 (Annex. 3) was issued in which it was mentioned that there were no dues against the petitioner. x) Further case of the petitioner is that so far as charge of office of Sr. Munshrim is concerned, at the time of retirement, he handed over the charge through proceedings dtd. 27. 11. 2003 (Annex. 4) and thus, when he had handed over the charge of last post, he was entitled to all post retirement benefits. xi) Further case of the petitioner is that through certificate dated 30. 11. 2003 (Annex. 5) which was issued by the respondent No. 1 (Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur) it has been clarified that the petitioner had retired on 30. 11. 2003 and at that time, no departmental enquiry as contemplated under the Rules of 1958 was pending against him. xii) Further case of the petitioner is that since he was not given all retrial benefits, therefore, he served a notice for demand of justice (Annex. 6) on 31. 3. 2004, but since his grievance was not redressed by the respondents, hence this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the petitioner retired from the services on 30. 11. 2003 and at the time of retirement no department enquiry was pending against him as is evident from the certificate dtd. 30. 11. 2003 (Annex. 5 ).