[2025:RJ-JP:17724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 394/2017 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4023/2004 1. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer Through Its Vice Chancellor. 2. The Registrar, Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. ----Review Petitioners/Respondents Versus Dr. N.M. Khandelwal, S/o Shri S.N. Khandelwal, R/o 13/592, Agra Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Review Respondent/Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Chirania assisted by Mr. Gaurav Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Jatav for Mr. D.D. Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 28/04/2025 This review petition is filed seeking a review and recall of the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court whereby, while allowing the writ petition filed by the review non-petitioner, the review petitioner-University was directed to release the retiral benefits to the review non-petitioner alongwith interest. The relevant facts in brief are that the review non-petitioner was appointed as Professor (Management Studies) in the review petitioner-University vide order dated 06.12.1995. He was served upon with a charge-sheet on 25.10.2002 when he was scheduled [2025:RJ-JP:17724] (2 of 4) [WRW-394/2017] to retire on 31.10.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. The writ petition preferred thereagainst by the review non- petitioner was allowed by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide order under view dated 07.04.2017 on the premise that there was no provision under the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, 1998 (for short “the Rules of 1998”) of the review petitioner contemplating either, continuation of the departmental inquiry after the retirement of the delinquent employee or the penalty of withholding the due amount of pay and allowances, gratuity, CPF/pension and leave encashment benefit. Learned counsel for the review petitioners, inviting attention of this Court towards the Regulations 20 and 50 of the Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer Pension Regulations, 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulation, 1990 (for brevity “the Regulations of 1990”), would submit that while, the regulation 20 provides for reduction in the amount of pension and gratuity in the contingency stipulated therein, the Regulation 50 provides that where the university statutes, ordinances, rules and decisions are silent, the rules and decisions of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Service Rules shall be referred to. Referring to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for brevity “the Rules of 1996”), learned counsel submits that the review petitioner-University is empowered and entitled to withhold the pension under the situations mentioned therein. Further, referring to the other provisions of the Rules of 1996, he would submit that certain other retiral benefits can also be withhold during pendency of the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel submits that since, the order under review has been passed [2025:RJ-JP:17724] (3 of 4) [WRW-394/2017] without taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations of 1990, it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record requiring its review and recall. Per contra, learned counsel for the review non-petitioner would submit that there is no provision under the Rules of 1996 for withholding all the retiral benefits. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the review petition. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order under review dated 07.04.2017 reveals that the writ petition preferred by the review non- petitioner against the charge-sheet dated 24.10.2002 served upon him was allowed only on the premise that the Rules of 1998 did not contemplate either continuation of the inquiry proceeding initiated on the date of retirement after the retirement or, imposition of the penalty of withholding of retiral benefits. However, a perusal of the Regulations of 1990 reflects that where, the university statutes, ordinances, rules and decisions are silent on certain matters, rules and decisions of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Service Rules shall be applicable. Indisputably, the Rules of 1996 entitle the appropriate Government to withhold the retiral benefits, if not all, some of them during pendency of the departmental inquiry and the same also contemplate imposition of the penalties including the penalty of withholding/deduction in pension. Since, the order under review dated 07.04.2017 has been passed without taking into consideration the provisions of the Regulations of 1990, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. [2025:RJ-JP:17724] (4 of 4) [WRW-394/2017] The submissions made by the learned counsel for the review non-petitioner does not merit acceptance in view of the aforesaid discussions. Resultantly, this review petition is allowed. The order dated 07.04.2017 is recalled and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4023/2004 is restored to its original number. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/s-150