Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Kumar Soni vs Rajasthan Khadi And Gramodyog Board ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:312]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3762/2021
Mahendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Jabrilal, Aged About 61 Years, By
Caste Soni, Resident Of Goga Gate, Before Old Bus Stand,
Gangashahar Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Khadi And Gramodyog Board, Gokul Bhai Bhatt
Smriti Bhawan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Khadi And Gramodyog Board,
Jaipur.
3. Accounts Officer, Rajasthan Khadi And Gramodyog Board,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pukh Das Vaishnav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prithvi Raj Singh Jodha
Mr.Himmat Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
03/01/2024
By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition may kindly be allowed and-
1- By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to release the payment
of balance of leave to the petitioner as well as payment of
his gratuity and other benefits with interest @ 12% p.a.
forthwith.
2- Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of
the petitioner."
Indisputably, the petitioner is a retired employee of the
respondent-department. An FIR came to be filed against the
[2024:RJ-JD:312] (2 of 3) [CW-3762/2021]
present petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2)
read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner before
the competent criminal court and the petitioner was tried for the
offences by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of
Corruption Act) Jodhpur. The charges were not proved against the
petitioner and therefore, vide judgment dated 15.2.2008, the
petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
The grievances of the petitioner are that despite the fact that
he has been acquitted by the competent criminal court, the
payment of gratuity and balance of leave etc. has not been
released to him by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, prayed that the
respondents may be directed to make payment of gratuity and
balance of leave etc. to the petitioner with interest at the rate of
12% per annum.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the State has preferred an appeal being S.B.Cr. Appeal
No.805/2008 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahendra Kumar Soni)
before this Court against the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the
competent criminal court, exonerating the petitioner from the
charges. The appeal preferred by the State is pending
consideration before this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at bar, this
Court finds that the petitioner has already been acquitted by the
competent criminal court. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner has already retired from the services and the payment
of gratuity and balance of leave etc. has been withheld only on
[2024:RJ-JD:312] (3 of 3) [CW-3762/2021]
account of pendency of the appeal against the order dated
15.2.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur.
In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner
has been acquitted by the competent criminal court, the
respondents cannot be permitted to withhold the payment of
gratuity and balance of leave etc. of the petitioner on the pretext
that the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before
this Court.
The stand taken by the respondents before this Court is
wholly unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to make payment of gratuity and balance
of leave etc. to the petitioner within a period of two months from
today. The petitioner is also held entitled for the interest at the
rate of 4% on the amount of gratuity and balance of leave etc.
from the date they became due as the delay is not attributable to
him and the same has occurred due to inaction on the part of the
respondent-authorities without any authority of law. It is however,
made clear that the demand of retiral benefits shall be subject to
the final order of the appeal No.805/2008 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Mahendra Kumar Soni) preferred by the State against the order
dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court
(Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
Sr.No.189
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
