Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia with the prayer that the respondents be directed to release his post retiral benefits viz. pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. together with interest @ 18% per annum.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that petitioner retired from the services of the respondent -Corporation on 31.5.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was informed by letter dated 19.8.2008 that due to pendency of charge sheets of the year 1973, 1974 and 1976, his post retiral benefits cannot be released. Aggrieved thereby petitioner served a legal notice for demand of justice to the respondents and thereafter filed the present writ petition. Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that unlike Rule 7, the Rajasthan Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 does not have any provision in their Standing Orders dealing with the matters to proceed in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. Learned counsel referred to the provisions contained in Chapter -5 of the said Standing Orders and in particular to Clause -36 and argued that aforesaid clause provides eight kind of different penalties that can be awarded, but does not include post retiral penalty such as stoppage, waiver of pension or otherwise. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor - : AIR 2008 SC 1831 and argued that in that case it was held that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after employee reaches his age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the same proposition of law relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, OSFC & Ors. - : AIR 1999 SC 1841 wherein it was held that if the Orissa State Financial Corporations Act does not provide the disciplinary proceedings at the time of retirement, the disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the State Financial Corporation after his superannuation would lapse. The same was the proposition of law in division bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Dr. R.B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6829/1996 decided on 22.2.2000.
(3.) SMT . Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be paid because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings in different charge sheets issued to him on 12.1.1974, 24.5.1976, 3.3.1976, 5.4.1976 and 12.12.1973. Learned counsel however unable to point out any provision in the aforesaid Standing Orders or otherwise in any Rule or Regulation of the respondents to show that the disciplinary proceedings could be continued against an employee even after his superannuation.;