Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a retired employee seeking benefit of Provident Fund, bonus, surrender leave and closing allowance. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that pending departmental enquiry an order of suspension was passed. The petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry yet he was not extended remaining salary of the period of suspension thus filed a writ petition. The writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1527/1986 was allowed vide order dated 8.4.1993 with a direction to pay all consequential benefits. Petitioner thereafter retired and respondent bank has not extended benefits as stated above.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent Bank submits that so far as bonus is concerned, it has already been given to the petitioner. The benefit of PF could not be given for want of contribution of the employee. So far as closing allowance is concerned, it is admissible only to those who actually undertaken the work. Lastly, surrender leave under rule 91 -A of the Rajasthan Service Rules is admissible only when it is claimed by the employee. Thus, other than PF, no amount is due for payment to the petitioner. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
(3.) IT is a case where departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension and after enquiry exonerated. His remaining benefits of the suspension period were withheld by the respondent bank thus order was passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition to grant due benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, retired from service. He has not been extended benefit of PF, bonus, surrender leave and closing allowance.;