LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri Manish Bhandari, for the appellants; and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, for the respondent.
(2.) THE State of Rajasthan and Director & Special Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, are the appellants. THE writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, Banwari Lal Yadav, with the following prayers:- " (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may be directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a time which the Hon'ble Court may prescribe. In the meanwhile petitioner may be granted an interim pension and respondents may be directed to award the same to the petitioner. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to pay pension to the petitioner, according to the Rules prescribed for this purpose, and my further be directed to grant the arrears of pension to the petitioner since his retirement along with interest 18% p. a. (iii) THE respondents may be further directed to make the payment of the entire amount of general provident fund to the petitioner and may also be directed to make the payment of earned leave benefit and gratuity after determination thereof. (iv) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be awarded and cost also may kindly be awarded. " A prayer, claiming interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, for delayed payment, was also made. The grievance of the respondent herein, was that the respondents therein and the appellants herein, were going against the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "rsr") and were not following the provisions in the said rules, while withholding the amounts of his pension, provident fund, gratuity, earned leave etc. According to him, nothing was due against the petitioner, on account of any reason whatsoever and that if the amount is found due against him, by the judicial authority, after proper adjudication, the respondent shall not hesitate to make the payment, without any delay, but without any adjudication of the amount, it is submitted that the appellants are not empowered to do something, which has not been authorised or permitted by any law. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide his order dated 31. 8. 98, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein, to grant the respondent, the benefits of his pension, provident fund, gratuity and earned leave, within three months from the date of the said order. The learned Judge has also awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. According to Shri Manish Bhandari, the respondent has committed an act of embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 2,73,000/- and has also failed to give account for the same, in respect of fodder distribution and that thus, in the absence of submission of accounts, after deducting the quantity of `chheejat' of fodder, the same remained unac- counted for and, therefore, the respondent- petitioner was not given his retiral benefits.
(3.) WE have perused the entire pleadings and the documents, placed before us, including the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Our attention was also drawn to the relevant rules in the RSR. As already noticed, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent, while he was the Local President of Gram Sewak Employee's Association, the then Block Development Officer had developed certain ill-will against the respondent herein and with a view to harassing him, he came out with a story that some amount of the Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, was due against the respondent herein, in order to prolong his pension-case and to deprive him to the amounts of his provident Fund, gratuity, earned leave salary etc. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. ;