Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present petitioner, Tara Chanad Agarwal, who is retired Executive Engineer, from the respondent Public Works Department (P.W.D.) on 31.01.2002, has not been paid his retiral dues since then for last 10 years and the present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 12.03.2012 seeking following relief(s). In the said premises and to meet the ends of justice the petitioner humbly prays that Your Honor may benevolently be pleased to allow this petition for writ in the nature of Mandamus and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: - - (i) That, by an appropriate writ, order or direction the communication dt. 18.10.2011 (Annex. 6) may kindly be quashed. (ii) That, the respondent be directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner with immediate effect. (iii) That, the Respondent be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum upon the delayed payment from the day it became due. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be considered proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed. (v) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the record that just prior to his retirement, a case under Sec. 13 (1)(e)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was instituted against the present petitioner, however, in the Criminal Case No. 45/2004 arising out of F.I.R. No. 107/2010 registered at Out Post ACB, Sirohi, the learned Sessions Judge, (P.C. Act Cases), Jodhpur honourably acquitted the petitioner and on the contrary found in its judgment dt. 24.03.2011 that instead of disproportionate higher assets, as against his known sources of income were in fat assets were lesser than his known source of income, namely, of Rs. 7,81,304/ - to the known income source of Rs. 14,35,715/ - for the considered number of years. The relevant paras No. 82 and 83 of the judgment of the said competent Court dt. 24.03.2011 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - -
(2.) THE State Government, however, has filed an appeal against the said acquittal order and the said appeal is said to be pending before this Court. The particulars of such appeal are not available with either of the learned counsels for the parties. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013, decided on 14.08.2013) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2460/2007, decided on 28.10.2009) and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jogendra Singh, reported in, 2005 (4) RDD 716 (Raj.) (DB) and urged that even if during the pendency of such criminal trial against the present petitioner, retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be withheld, much -less now with the honourable acquittal of the present petitioner by the competent Court, and merely because the State has filed an appeal against such acquittal of the present petitioner, which may take years to be decided and the petitioner can also succeed there with State losing its appeal, but till then the petitioner cannot be deprived of his retiral dues.
(3.) HE also submitted that like in the State of Jharkhand, there are not even Administrative Instructions in the State of Rajasthan for so withholding of the retiral dues of the petitioner and without passing any order in this regard, the respondent -Department is just sitting tight over the retiral dues of the present petitioner.;