[2025:RJ-JP:14199] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11282/2008 Bhagwat Singh Chudawat S/o Shri Vijaya Singh Chudawat, 46- Guru Das Colony, Opposite Khalsa School, Kumharon Ka Bhatta, Udaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner Of Transport, Parivahan Bhawan, Near Baish Godam Puliya, Opposite Motor Garrage, Jaipur. 3. Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Udaipur. 4. Director Of Pension And Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Director State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Vitt Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma for Mr. Rajeev B. Bansal For Respondent(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents for making payment of retrial dues to the petitioner. 2. Contents of the petition indicates that the petitioner stood retired on 30.11.2006, after attaining the age of superannuation. When the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, he [2025:RJ-JP:14199] (2 of 3) [CW-11282/2008] approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition, wherein notices were issued to the respondents. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been submitted by the respondents, which indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was pending against the petitioner, hence, the retiral dues were not extended to the petitioner. 4. It is also stated in the reply that a sum of Rs.87,655/- was paid to the petitioner under the head of State Insurance and Rs.2,28,806/- under the GPF amount paid to him on 27.01.2010 and thereafter, Letter dated 11.06.2009 was send to his residential address by completing the necessary formalities on the record, but the registered letter was received back with the endorsement ‘undelivered’. The said Letter has been enclosed with the reply marked as Annx.R-1, which indicates that certain information was sought from the petitioner by the respondent- Department for releasing his retiral dues, but no response to the said application was submitted by him. 5. Without entering into the controversy involved in the instant matter and looking to the aforesaid reply submitted by the respondents and the letter sent to the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of instant petition with directions to the respondents to issue a fresh letter, asking the petitioner to complete the formalities by sending a letter on the residential address as mentioned in the array of cause title and after receipt of the response from the petitioner on the subsequent letter, his retrial dues be released forthwith, if no adverse order is passed [2025:RJ-JP:14199] (3 of 3) [CW-11282/2008] against him under the proceedings initiated under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. 6. Needless to observe that the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. Respondents are not present before this Court, hence, they are not aware about the passing of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondents for their information, intimation and compliance. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RONAK JAIMAN/77