[2025:RJ-JP:12549] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4756/2001 T.C. Jain (since deceased) through his Legal Representatives:- 1/1-Smt. Shanta Jain, aged about 67 years, wife of Late Shri T.C. Jain 1/2-Mr. Ravi Jain, aged about 42 years, son of Late Shri T.C. Jain (Residents of F-20, Lotus Street, Ivth Avenue, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi Mr. Aman Manju For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/03/2025 1. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent of granting payment of gratuity amount by the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.1993. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry was pending against him under Rule16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”), which resulted in punishment to the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2001 and a decision was taken by the respondents to withhold 5% of his pension amount for a period of [2025:RJ-JP:12549] (2 of 3) [CW-4756/2001] two years and suspension allowance during the suspension period. Learned counsel submits that there was no order with regard to withholding of gratuity amount. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time i.e., more than 24 years till date the respondents have not released the gratuity amount to the petitioner and whilst litigating his battle against the respondents the petitioner has expired and now his legal representatives are pursuing the matter. Learned counsel submits that appropriate directions be issued to the State-authorities to release the gratuity amount of the petitioner along-with interest @9% p.a. in terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that because of pendency of departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958, the amount of gratuity was withheld and the same could not be released. Learned counsel submits that, no such prayer has been made in the instant writ petition for payment of gratuity, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the punishment order dated 03.08.2001, the pension case of the petitioner was prepared and the same was disposed of on 11.06.2002 and the suspension period of the petitioner also counted for the purpose of pension benefits and, accordingly, pension has been released in his favour, hence under the changed circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:12549] (3 of 3) [CW-4756/2001] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, departmental enquiry under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958 was pending against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was punished with stoppage of 5% of the amount of pension for a period of two years and his suspension allowance were ordered to be withheld. No punishment order has been passed against the petitioner, so under these circumstances, after passing of the order dated 03.08.2001, the respondents were not justified in withholding the amount of gratuity of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that the legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to get due amount of gratuity with interest @9% per annum to be paid by the respondent-Department in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 (if not earlier paid). 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 8. Needless to observe that the respondents would comply with this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/11