Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development ... vs Veerbhadra Singh Rathore ... on 29 November, 2023

Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni

[2023:RJ-JD:41116-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 417/2023
1. Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas Bhawan, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur, Through Its Chairman
2. The General Manager, Rajasthan Tribal Areas
Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas
Bhawan, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur
(respondents in the writ petition)
----Appellants
Versus
Ashok Mehta S/o Shri Daulat Singh Mehta, Aged About 67 Years,
Resident Of B-25, Haridas Ji Ki Magri, Udaipur.
(petitioner in the writ petition)
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 487/2023
1. Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas Bhawan, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur, Through Its Chairman.
2. The General Manager, Rajasthan Tribal Areas
Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas
Bhawan, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.
(respondents in the writ petition)
----Appellants
Versus
Keshar Singh S/o Sh. Hurmal Singh Chouhan, r/o Village And
Post Suroli, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur.
(petitioner in the writ petition)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 567/2023
1. Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas Bhawan, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur, Through Its Chairman.
2. The General Manager, Rajasthan Tribal Areas
Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas
Bhawan, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur
(respondents in the writ petition)
----Appellants
Versus
Veerbhadra Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Jorawar Singh, Resident Of
Village And Post Ratadiya, Via Chitri, Tehsil Galiyakot, District
Dungarpur.
(petitioner in the writ petition)
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 30/11/2023 at 08:41:44 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41116-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-417/2023]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 589/2023
1. Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas Bhawan, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur, Through Its Chairman.
2. The General Manager, Rajasthan Tribal Areas
Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Janjati Vikas
Bhawan, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.
(respondents in the writ petition)
----Appellants
Versus
Devendra Kumar Saheewal S/o Sh. Lal Singh Saheewal,
Resident Of 3-Tha-5, Hiran Magri, Sector No. 5, Udaipur.
(petitioner in the writ petition)
----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradhuman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

Reportable 29/11/2023

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant-federation

aggrieved of the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents

have been allowed and the appellants have been directed to make

proper pay fixation of the petitioners therein and release all retiral

benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., in

favour of the petitioners within a period of four months from the

date of the order and in case the same was not done within the

said period of four months, it was observed that the respondents

herein would be entitled to receive interest @ 4% per annum on

all the arrears.

2. The petitioners in the writ petitions approached the Court

against the action of the respondents in not granting them full

[2023:RJ-JD:41116-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-417/2023]

pension and other pensionary benefits like gratuity, leave

encashment etc., despite the fact that they were acquitted by the

criminal court in the trial they were facing for offences punishable

under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A read

with Section 120-B of the IPC, despite their having retired long

back.

3. The response was filed to the writ petitions inter alia pointing

out that against the judgment of the acquittal, whereby, all the

petitioners were tried together by the special court, Leave to

Appeal have been filed by the State, wherein, notices have been

issued and the matter is pending consideration before this Court

and, therefore, in view of provisions of Rule 90 of the Rajasthan

Pension Rules, 1996, the petitioners were only entitled to

provisional pension.

4. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties referring to

the judgments in the case of Harbans Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2460/2007 decided on

28.10.2009, State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jogendra Singh in D.B.

Civil Special Appeal No.110/2005 decided on 04.04.2005, Chula

Ram Heerani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3509/2014 decided on 06.01.2017 came to the

conclusion that as the judicial/criminal proceedings initiated

against the petitioners stood completed resulting in their acquittal

by the competent criminal court merely because proceedings

against the said judgments initiated by the State were pending,

the same would not be termed as continuation of the criminal trial

or judicial proceedings against the petitioners within the meaning

[2023:RJ-JD:41116-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-417/2023]

of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 and consequently passed the order

as noticed hereinbefore.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to make

submissions that as the Leave to Appeal have been filed against

the judgment acquitting the respondents by the criminal court,

wherein notices have been issued, the petitioners are not entitled

for grant of full pension and other benefits and under provisions of

Rule 90(1)(c), they were only entitled to provisional pension and,

therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to

be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made

submissions that the issue raised already stands concluded by

Division Bench judgment in the case of Jogendra Singh (supra)

and various Benches of this Court have repeatedly held that

pendency of appeal against the judgment of acquittal cannot be

taken as pendency of judicial proceedings against the retired

employee so as to deprive him of full pension and other benefits

and, therefore, these appeals deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material available on

record.

8. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 deals with the power of the

Government to withhold or withdraw pension. The provision inter

alia provides that where any departmental proceedings or judicial

proceedings are pending against the employee on the date of his

retirement, the employee would be entitled to provisional pension.

9. Further, Rule 90(1)(c) of the Rules provides that no gratuity

shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the

[2023:RJ-JD:41116-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-417/2023]

departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders

thereon.

10. In the present case, on the date of retirement of the

respondents, the proceedings were pending before the criminal

court and ultimately, by judgment dated 25.05.2017, all the

respondents came to be acquitted by the said criminal court.

11. In the case of Jogendra Singh (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court while considering the similar issue came to the following

conclusion:-

"In our view, simply because the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before the appellate court, the respondent cannot be deprived for the retiral benefits."

12. In the case of Jogendra Singh (supra), even in a case where

the appeal against the order of acquittal was pending, the Court

came to the conclusion that the respondent therein could not be

deprived of the retiral benefits. In the present case, the

applications filed by the appellants for grant of leave to file appeal

are pending and even the same has not been granted and,

therefore, the case of the appellants is worse than what was

involved in the case of Jogendra Singh (supra).

13. The provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1996, deals with the

cases where judicial proceedings are pending against the

employee on the date of his retirement, admittedly in the present

case, the criminal trial was going on against the respondents at