JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar in Devasthan Vibhag on 20.12.1946 and after having rendered satisfactory service for over 43 years, he retired from service on 30.4.90. After retirement of the petitioner, he was entitled to get Pension, Gratuity, Insurance and G.P.F. etc. but the same has not been paid to him. He made requests to the respondents to pay him pensionary benefits but no action has been taken. A notice of demand for justice given by the petitioner is also proved futile. The petitioner has stated that Pension, Gratuity etc. constituted his property. Denial of the same amounts to denial of fundamental rights of the petitioner. He has also stated that benefit of pay fixation which was implemented in 1985 has not been given to the petitioner. 2. When the case was taken up for hearing the learned Counsel for petitioner produced a letter dated 24.4.91 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Kota. In that letter it has been stated that the petitioner should deposit salary of the month of April, 90 because his date of retirement was 31.3.90. Then the petitioner's case can be submitted for grant of pension. 3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. From averments made in petition together with the letter dated 24.4.91 of the Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan, Kota it is clear that petitioner's pension has been withheld because the petitioner has physically retired on 30.4.90 although, he should have been retired on 31.3.90. Obviously he had worked for one month more than the period for which he could have in fact worked. He was paid salary for the month of April,90. Subsequently, when the departmental authority realised that the petitioner had worked beyond the date of his retirement and till that matter is clear, he cannot be given benefit of other benefits. Precisely for this reason letter dated 24.4.91 has been written by the Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan, Kota calling upon the petitioner to deposit the salary of the month of April,90. I am clearly of the opinion that the ground on which petitioner's retirement benefit has been withheld is absolutely untenable. It is true that the petitioner should have been retired on 31.3.90 and he did not have a legal right to continue to serve beyond 31.3.90. I am clearly of the opinion that the ground on which petitioner's retirement benefit has been withheld is absolutely untenable. It is true that the petitioner should have been retired on 31.3.90 and he did not have a legal right to continue to serve beyond 31.3.90. However, the fact remains that the petitioner did in fact work upto 31.3.90. He was paid salary for the period he had rendered service. Once he has rendered service for the month of April, 90, he was entitled to be paid salary. It was the fault of the department to have continued the petitioner beyond 31.3.90. For that reason the petitioner cannot be made sufferer. Obviously, therefore, there is no justification for withholding retirement benefit of the petitioner. 5. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Devkinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1971(2) SCC 330 , that the pension of a Government Servant is his property and he cannot be deprived of it without the authority of law. 6. The writ petition of the petitioner, therefore, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to give the retirement benefit to the petitioner like Gratuity, Pension, Insurance. G.P.F. etc. within a period of 2 months from the date of service of copy of this order on the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur and Director, State Insurance and G.P.F., Jaipur. For this purpose the respondents should not insist on the petitioner depositing salary of the month of April, 90. If the respondents failed to make payment of all the retirement benefits within two months, as aforesaid, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 18% with effect from today. This will be without prejudice to other proceedings that the petitioner may take against the respondents. 7. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******