M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23.9.2005, whereby, certain benefits claimed by the employee Shiv Charan Lal (since deceased - now represented through legal representatives) have been denied in view of the punishment order to withhold 100% pension.

2. A challenge to the punishment in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9076/2005 has been decided where the writ petition has been dismissed, thereby, order of punishment has been maintained.

3. After holding enquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, petitioner-Shiv Charan Lal (since deceased - represented through legal representatives) was punished with stoppage of 100% pension under rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996. The employee stood retired from services on 31.3.1996 on attaining of age of superannuation.

4. Vide representation dated 31.8.2005 at anneuxre-3, employee requested the respondent No. 2 to grant him other benefits, however, vide order dated 23.9.2005 at annexure-4, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation holding that he is not entitled for any benefit in view of the punishment order dated 30.7.2005 at annexure- 2. Hence, the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though as per rule 6(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, appointing authority may withhold or withdraw pension or a part thereof permanently or for a specified period, if employee concerned is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct, however, retiral benefits other than pension cannot be withheld. The prayer is made to accept the writ petition and set aside the order dated 23.9.2005 at annexure-4 whereby his representation dated 31.8.2005 has been rejected. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Smt Shanti Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1118/2010, decided on 28.1.2015 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

6. Mr. B.L. Avasthi, Additional Government Counsel, has opposed the petition. He submits that the employee has been punished with stoppage of 100% pension. The appointing authority has the power under rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules of 1996 to withhold post retiral benefits.

7. It is a case where the employee was punished with stoppage of 100% pension forever vide order dated 30.7.2005. During pendency of the enquiry under rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, deceased employee stood retired on 31.3.1995, however, enquiry was ordered to be continued. The punishment order was passed thereafter. The employee represented to the respondents to grant benefits other than pension, however, it was denied vide impugned order.

8. By the effect of rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules of 1996, appointing authority is authorised to withhold pension or part thereof permanently or for a specified period if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. The definition of 'pension' is given under rule 3(p) of the Rules of 1996, which includes gratuity. The definition aforesaid is quoted hereunder -

"'(p) 'pension' includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity; but does not include dearness relief and Interim Relief;"

9. The issue in reference to the definition of 'pension' came up for consideration before the Division Bench in the case of "State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal Rajpurohit", DB Special Appeal No. 1833/2008, decided on 9.5.2012. The argument raised herein for claim of gratuity was not accepted. In view of aforesaid, action of the respondents in withholding of pension including gratuity cannot be said to be illegal but the deceased employee (represented through legal representatives) would be entitled for other benefits: PL encashment, General Provident Fund, State Insurance etc accruing upon retirement of the deceased-employee Shiv Charan Lal. There is no provision to withhold the same.

10. The judgment in the case of Smt Shanti Cho