Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following the prayers: "1. By and appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may be directed to pay the petitioner leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 6,97,000/-as due to the petitioner and also pay interest on delayed payment of leave encashment along with interest at rate of 18%. 2. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) The facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Executive Officer in Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner attained superannuation on 31.12.2013. The petitioner was paid the amount of Rs.10 lacs payable as gratuity on 22.01.2014 but the amount due to petitioner in lieu of the leave encashment to the tune of Rs.6,97000/- was withheld by the respondents. The withholding of such payment was inspite of indemnity bound submitted by the petitioner on 2.01.2014. The counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 AIR(SC) 2010 whereby the counsel was trying to establish the timing of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution. Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention to the judgment passed in State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, 2013 12 SCC 210 to show that withholding at retiral benefits is not permissible unless provided in law. Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Section-57 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies 2001 wherein the respondents cannot take action against the petitioner after two years of information to the Registrar of the Act or omission to take the necessary action.
(3.) The respondents have filed a reply and stated that the petitioner was facing a criminal proceedings as well as proceedings under Rajasthan Central Cooperative Societies Act and in view that it is a possibility of some money would be recoverable on conclusion of these proceedings against him. It was also mentioned in the reply that the FIR against the petitioner is pending before the ACB involving serious charges and therefore leave encashment has been rightly withheld. The counsel for the respondents also argued that the Rajasthan Service Rules were applicable for the petitioner and Rule 91 B Sub Rule-7 ample powers to the competent authority to withhold the benefits of a retired person on disciplinary or criminal proceedings being pending.;