IMPORTANT POINT
The continuous willingness of the petitioner to hand over the charge, absence of disciplinary proceedings, and issuance of No-dues certificate at retirement rendered the withholding of benefits unjustified.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The respondent may kindly be directed drop the proceeding of the recovery of the amount of Rs.15.19 lakhs from the petitioner and,

(ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to release the gratuity and commutation amount of the petitioner with immediate effect @ 9% interest and,

(iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to release the full and final pension of the petitioner and,

(iv) The respondent may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and,

(v) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour.

(vi) The writ petition may be allowed with costs.”

2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the respondent department on 20.10.1978 and attained superannuation from the post of Assistant Engineer on 30.04.2012. However, only provisional pension was paid to the petitioner, whereas retiral benefits were withheld by the respondents. During service, the petitioner was transferred on the post of Executive Engineer Regulation Division – 4, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Nachna on 01.08.2007, and four years thereafter, a letter dated 23.03.2011 was sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4 alleging that the petitioner had not done physical verification of the store goods worth Rs.15.19/- lakhs and directed to get the same done and handover charge to the concerned Jr. Engineer.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 appointed Jr. Engineer Shri M.K. Bohra by order dated 31.01.2012 to take over charge from the petitioner, however on count of unwillingness shown by Shri M.K. Bohra, the same could not take place, and on many occasions, the petitioner endeavoured for the same, yet no result yielded, and therefore a representation dated 20.04.2012 was sent to respondent no.2 requesting issuance of direction to respondent no.3 to accept survey report and for Shri M.K. Bohra to accept charge of the stock; in furtherance, the representation was made to the Superintending Engineer, Construction and Maintenance Circle IGNP, Phalodi and Executive Engineer 28th Division, IGNP, Phalodi.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and was retired from his services on 30.04.2012 and No-dues letter was issued to the petitioner on the same date. However, the respondent no.3 sent a letter dated 03.05.2012 for deposition of an amount of Rs.15.19 lakhs by the petitioner. Thereafter on 09.10.2012, a letter was sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4 stating that the survey report of only stock amounting to Rs.4,77,588/- is left to be prepared.

2.3. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 6380/2013 (Subhash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2013), whereafter, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on various occasions, and on 05.07.2013, the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to handover the charge to Shri M.K. Bohra, whereafter the petitioner went to Phalodi and duly handed over the charge of stock and T&P, and in regard to this, a letter dated 27.08.2013 was issued by the respondent No.3 stating the charge of items given by the petitioner and also the ones not given. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was issued the No-dues certificate, and on that count, the proceeding and the recovery of Rs.15.19/- Lakhs pending against the petitioner is not valid.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent department, four years after the petit