Judgment : A.S. Tripathi 1. THIS writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage under the Rules of Court by agreement of parties' learned counsel. 2. THE petitioner by means of this writ petition prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for payment of pension, gratuity, general provident fund and other dues to the petitioner in persuance of the payment order issued by the Accountant General, U. P.-II, Allahabad. The petitioner was serving as Range Officer, Shivpuri Range under Tehri Forest Division, Tehri Garhwal. He retired on 31-3-1986 after attaining the age of superannuation. The conduct of the petitioner has been good during the entire service. After the retirement of the petitioner all formalities of pension etc. were completed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Forest Division and the same was sent to Accountant General, U. P. Allahabad for payment vide letter no. 1533/28-133 dated 25-9-1986, Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. It is alleged that no-dues certificate was also forwarded by the Divisional Forest Officer to the A.G.U.P. as mentioned at serial no. 12 of the covering letter referred above. After examining the matter the A.G.U.P. issued payment order on 23-1-1987, Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner's pension was calculated and sanctioned at Rs. 753/- per month plus allowances and an amount of Rs. 25080/- was sanctioned as gratuity. 3. IT is alleged that Treasury Officer, Dehradun refused to make payment of the pension and gratuity to the petitioner without assigning any reason. Later on it was disclosed to the petitioner that the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit, had withheld the payment of the said amount on the pretext that some dues were recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner represented vide application, Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, to the Divisional Forest Officer for release of his pension and gratuity etc. but the same was not considered, A representation was made to the Accountant General, U. P. and again letter dated 13-6-88, Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, was issued directing the Treasury Officer, Dehradun to make the payment. Inspire of the said direction the payment has not been released to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made various representations to the authorities concerned but they were not considered. 4. ON another representation the Addl. 4 to the writ petition, was issued directing the Treasury Officer, Dehradun to make the payment. Inspire of the said direction the payment has not been released to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made various representations to the authorities concerned but they were not considered. 4. ON another representation the Addl. Chief Conservator, Garhwal Region, U. P. directed by his letter dated 17-9-1988, Annexure no. 10 to the writ petition for payment of the pension, gratuity etc. to the petitioner. But inspite of the same the Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Garhwal did not make any arrangement with the treasury at Dehradun for payment of the dues. When all other remedies were exhausted this petition was filed. 5. COUNTER affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. In this counter affidavit all the facts were admitted. It was simply alleged that some dues of Pilibhit Forest Division and Tehri Forest Division were recoverable from the petitioner, which comes to Rs. 6,92,122.48 P. The total amount was alleged without giving details. On this basis it was alleged that inspite of issue of no dues certificate payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner was withheld. Ex. 1, to the writ petition is the letter dated 25-9- 1986 sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri to the Accountant General, U. P. Allahabad with all necessary details in which at item no. 12 it was clearly mentioned that nodues certificate was also attached. 6. IN view of the letter dated 25-9-1986 sent by the Divisional Forest Officer to A.G.U.P. Allahabad requesting for payment of pension and gratuity etc. to the petitioner the A.G.U.P. Allahabad issued pension payment order No. PA-II/12154 dated 23-1-1987, Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. After the issue of Pension Payment Order the Treasury Officer, Dehradun had refused to make the payment on the request made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit that some outstanding dues were against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the pension payment order was issued the same could not be withheld by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit where the petitioner was posted at one time. Once the nodues certificate and the pension payment order were issued there was no occasion for the respondents to claim the vague outstanding dues against the petitioner. Once the nodues certificate and the pension payment order were issued there was no occasion for the respondents to claim the vague outstanding dues against the petitioner. No charge was framed against the petitioner for such dues and no proceedings were initiated against him during the tenure of his service. The petitioner made correspondence in this regard and was never inferred as to why the payment of pension and gratuity etc. of the petitioner was with-held. According to the petitioner it was simply a case of harassment by the Ex. Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit. On further correspondence the A.G.U.P. Allahabad had issued the direction vide letter dated 13-6-1988, Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, directing the Treasury Officer, Dehradun to make payment of pension and gratuity etc. to the petitioner. But inspite of the said direction of the A.G.U.P. the payments were with-held arbitrarily. Representations were made to the government and the same were not considered and rejected and then the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition. Further the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forest, Garhwal Region vide his letter dated 17-9-1988, Annexure no. 10 to the writ petition, had directed to the Divisional Forest Officer Dehradun for payment of pension etc. but the same was not complied with. 7. IN the counter affidavit the respondents have simply averred that some outstanding dues were pending against the petitioner and that is why the payment has been with-held. The details of the dues were not given, simply vague items were mentioned that some articles were not handed-over in charge by the petitioner at Pilibhit. 8. AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record two things are very clear : (i) The petitioner was retired after completing his superannuation, before his retirement no charge was framed against him. Nothing was disclosed that any dues were outstanding against him. (ii) The head of the office, i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun directed for payment of pension etc. to the petitioner. Even the Chief Conservator of Forest directed for such payment and nodues certificate was duly issued. Only after the. retirement of the petitioner the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit where at one time the petitioner was posted sent some notes that some articles were not handed over by the petitioner while leaving the charge. This was done after a lapse of time. Only after the. retirement of the petitioner the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit where at one time the petitioner was posted sent some notes that some articles were not handed over by the petitioner while leaving the charge. This was done after a lapse of time. It is apparent on record that no cogent reason was given as to why no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during service for recovery of any other outstanding dues. 9. REFERENCE was made to the government order dated 23-7-1989 which was issued by the Chief Secretary Finance Department, U. P. Shashan, to the heads of all the Departments regarding payment of pension etc. In this government order it was clearly provided that whatever action for recovery of dues was to be taken it must be well in advance before retirement of the employee. Further it is directed that if any such steps were not taken before retirement it Was the responsibility of the head of the department. Further if any dues were found to be outstanding after retirement of the employee his pension and gratuity etc. could not be with-held and whatever legal remedy is available the same could be invoked. It was not open to the respondents to with-hold the pension and gratuity etc. of the petitioner after his retirement. 10. FURTHER it is very important to note that nodues certificates were already issued. The pension payment order was already issued in favour of the petitioner by the Accountant General and only then something was disposed that some articles were not handed over by the petitioner at Pilibhit where he was posted at one time much earlier than his retirement. In view of these facts and circumstances it is against the principles established and the government orders issued and also against the natural justice to with-held the pension etc. of the -petitioner after retirement without substituting the same. The respondents have not come forward with any proof or evidence to show before this court that there were outstanding dues against the petitioner which could be considered at the time of disposal of this petition. Simply allegations are not enough to left over the petitioner in lurch and he may remain without pension and gratuity etc. till his death. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition succeeds. 11. THE writ petition is allowed. Simply allegations are not enough to left over the petitioner in lurch and he may remain without pension and gratuity etc. till his death. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition succeeds. 11. THE writ petition is allowed. It is directed by a writ of mandamus that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner his pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other dues in accordance with the pension payment order issued by the A.G.U.P. Allahabad. However, no order is made as to costs. Petition allowed.