JAMALUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in 2002 aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding his retiral benefits though petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/11/1995 from the post of Jiledar. His retiral benefits such as amount of State Insurance, GPF, Leave Encashment worth Rs.1,30,808.00 was paid by the respondents after service of notice of this writ petition on 31/3/2003.

(2.) Shri Manoj Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that these retiral benefits were withheld for a long time and the petitioner was paid only the provisional pension on the suspicion and assumption that petitioner may be involved in the matter of embezzlement, main allegation of which, was against certain Patwaris of the department. Petitioner gave representation which was replied by the respondents in 1995 but in this reply also, respondents did not specify whether the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld on account of any probability of his involvement in the embezzlement or not. Only in reply to the writ petition which the respondents have filed, referred to the communication dated 23/11/1995 stating therein that explanation of the petitioner was called and since the matter was pending consideration with the respondents to examine as to there was any vigilance enquiry or whether there was any sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for allegation of embezzlement, retiral benefits could not be released. It is further contended that subsequently when the Additional Chief Engineer Irrigation Division Kota vide communication dated 17/2/2003 gave No Objection Certificate (NOC), only thereafter petitioner was ordered to be paid benefit of full pension and other retiral dues vide order dated 31/3/2003.

(3.) From the stand taken by the respondents, it would be evident that no charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner and that he was only called upon to give his explanation which he submitted. It is further evident that explanation of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents which is why they did not proceed against him in departmental action and issued NOC but the explanation of the petitioner submitted as far as back 1995 remained pending consideration with the respondents till 2003 when they ultimately released the final retiral dues. Reply to the writ petition does not contain any explanation whatsoever as to why period of 8 years was consumed by the respondents in taking final decision in the matter. For all this time, petitioner was being deprived of getting his rightful claim of pension and other retiral dues within time.