Judgment:
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.
1. The petitioner was retired compulsorily by order dated December 11, 1975 which order was quashed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by its order dated 19-9-1980. The State of Rajasthan preferred a writ petition before this court and the same was dismissed by (his court by order dated 24-8-83. He appeal has been filed against that order and therefore the order of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 386/ 83 dated 24-5-83, has become final and the order dated December 11, 1975 retiring the petitioner compulsorily, stands quashed.
2. The petitioner filed the contempt petition which was registered at S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 97/84, on 12-4-84. It was admitted on 27-4-84. Notices were issued and Mr. S.N. Mathur, learned Counsel put in appearance on behalf of the two contemnors on 17-9-85. A reply to the contempt petition was filed on 23-5-85 by Shri V.M. Bahadur non-petitioner No. 2, stating that payment of Rs. 90,800.07 on account of salary and other allowances as admissible to the petitioner has been made to him and that the case for pension has already been forwarded to the Pension Officer and it will be decided expeditiously by the Pension Officer. Similar reply was filed by the non petitioner No. 1, Smt. Krishna Bhatnagar.
3. The petitioner has moved another application on 16th April, 1986 stating that the Government has issued the Pension Payment Order in which only 50 percent of the pension has been allowed to be paid. There is no mention as to how it has reduced the pension to 50%. Besides this, amount of gratuity has not been ordered to be paid so far. Notices of this application were also given to the respondents and the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Krishna Bhatnagar has filed a reply on 14-5-86, submitting that the above pension was sanctioned under Rule 170A of the Rajasthan Service Rules as departmental enquiries under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 are pending.
4. This matter came up for orders yesterday and the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the clarification added to Rule 170A of Rajasthan Service Rules. Thereafter, Mr. S.B. Mathur, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners sought time and the case has come up today for orders.
5. I am glad that Mr. S.B. Mathur, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners, instead of contesting the matter, has produced in the court order dated 20-5-86 clarifying that the petitioner will be entitled to full pension and the same will be paid at Jaipur as the petitioner is staying in Jaipur. He has submitted that the gratuity amount cannot be paid to the petitioner as some departmental enquiries are pending, against him.
6. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating therein that in all four enquiries are pending against him. Three of them relate to the period earlier to 1966-67 and the 4th enquiry relates to the period of 1971. Charge-sheets were given in the year 1970 and 1973. He has further submitted that he had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 858/76, and further proceedings in the enquiries were stayed but the said writ petition was dismissed on July 31, 1981 and this court directed to complete the enquiries. The petitioner filed D.B Civil Special Appeal No. 163/82 against the order dated July 31, 1981 and this court by its order dated July 16, 1982 stayed the operation of the order of this court dated July 31, 1981 but the said stay order was vacated on May 6,1983. Since then, there is no stay regarding further proceedings in the enquiries and nearly three years have passed thereafter and the Government has not concluded the enquiries so far. It is really regrettable that the enquiries which relate to a period prior to 1966-67 and 1971 are not being proceeded with expeditiously, with the result the petitioner has been deprived of his gratuity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanbhan Nair : 1985CriLJ657 has observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disburment thereof, must be visited with a penalty or payment of interest and in that case, their Lordship of the Supreme Court further observed that the petitioner was entitled to payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.
7. Farlir also, the Supreme Court in Devkinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar : (1984)ILLJ237SC . and again Devkinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1960 had observed that the State Government should not harass a petitioner intentionally and they should dispose of their pension and gratuity matters as expeditiously as possible, and it they fail, then they are liable to pay exemplary cost to the petitioner which they quantified at Rs. 25,000/- in that case.
8. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, it is expected from the State Government that they should decide the pension cases of the Government employees as expeditiously as possible. Even if an employee has filed writ petition in the court, challenging some orders of the State Government, the State Government should not be biased and vindictive and it is expected not to harass the petitioner because he has agitated his rights in a court of law. It appears that the State Government, keeping that in mind, has inserted Rule 305A in the Rajasthan Service Rules providing that if the payment of gratuity is authorised after three months from the date it became due, the petitioner is entitled to an interest at rate of 5% per annum for the period beyond three months after the gratuity became due. in that rule, it has further been provided that where the payment of interest has been authorised, the Administrative Department shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant(s) concerned who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity amount. Rule 305A of the Rajasthan Service Rules has come into force with effect from 1-6-1985 and it is all the more regretable that inspite of this Rule 305A, the Government and its officers are not proceeding with the enquiries expeditiously.
9. I, therefore, think it proper to direct the Government and its officers concerned to complete all the enquiries pending against the petitioner within a period of three months and issue necessary orders with regard to gratuity immediately. Put up for further orders on 25th August, 1986.
10. A copy of this order should be sent to the Chief Secretary; to the Special Secretary to Govt. Department of Personnel and the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries.