JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Attar Singh, Vice Chairman (Oral) 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: " (i) That the respondents may be directed to release the retrial benefits of applicant with penal interest at market rate on delayed payments . (ii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the records pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Honble Tribunal." 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner as set out is that he joined service as JBT on March 31, 1960. During June 1985, he was promoted as Head Teacher and during May 1992 he was further promoted as Centre Head Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2900/-.He retired as Centre Head Teacher from Government Primary School, Gallian on February 29,1996. During October, 1994 the applicant was directed to produce certificate pertaining to BA Part-I and on that basis during November, 1994 he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- with effect from January 1,1986 and Rs. 2000-3500/- with effect from November 1, 1989, which scale was permissible to those teachers, who had acquired qualification of B.A, Part-1/F.A. between December 13, 19§8 to September 27, 1979. As a result of this pay fixation, applicant got an amount of Rs.27,214/- on account of arrears. 3. Vide office memorandum dated November 21,1994, Annexure A-1 applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for allegedly cheating the Government. After the reply submitted by the applicant, respondent No. 3 ordered recovery vide letter dated February 3, 1995 (Annexure A-2) of alleged over-payments from the applicant in lump-sum and also directed that his pay may be brought down to the stage at which he would have been, but for the alleged wrong pay fixation. Consequently, the applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 32,214/- with Block Primary Education Officer on account of over payment recovery in the Government Treasury Vide Challan No.21 dated March 6,1995. Vide another letter issued in May, 1995, Annexure A-3, respondent No. 3 directed the applicant to deposit interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 27,214/-. It is further submitted that the entire amount of over payment alongwith interest has been recovered from the applicant. Vide another letter issued in May, 1995, Annexure A-3, respondent No. 3 directed the applicant to deposit interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 27,214/-. It is further submitted that the entire amount of over payment alongwith interest has been recovered from the applicant. Vide office memorandum dated April 18, 1995, Annexure A-4 the applicant was imposed penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2640/- for a period of one year and as a result of this penalty, applicant did not earn one increment, which he was to earn in June, 1995. The applicant retired on February 29,1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. Even after a period of more than two years after the retirement of applicant, his retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity and leave encashment have not been paid to him. 4. As per Rule 9 of the CCS. Pension Rules the Government has right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. As per Sub Rule 2(b) of Rule 9 the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, the same shall not be instituted except with the sanction of the competent authority and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. The departmental proceedings and judicial proceedings for the purpose of Rule-9 are defined in Sub- Rule 6 thereof. Therefore, there is no justification for withholding of the retiral benefits of the applicant. 5. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. The departmental proceedings and judicial proceedings for the purpose of Rule-9 are defined in Sub- Rule 6 thereof. Therefore, there is no justification for withholding of the retiral benefits of the applicant. 5. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted that the applicant has got higher scale on acquiring higher qualification by submitting false copy of B.A. Part-I certificate and later on the inquiry against the applicant was initiated and during the course of inquiry the applicant confessed his guilt and admitted to pay/ deposit the entire amount and after the completion of inquiry the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, vide Annexure A-4 imposed the penalty upon the applicant. It is further submitted that as per the information received from the District Education Officer, Bilaspur that a criminal case FIR No. 1/95 dated October 17, 1995 under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the false claim of Rs. 3200/- has been registered by the vigilance Department and the entire service record including the service Book of the applicant has been taken by the Vigilance Department on November 30,1995. Due to this reason the pension case of the applicant was not processed to the Accountant General Himachal Pradesh for the release of retiral benefits. 6. Vide our order dated September 27, 1999 directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to file Supplementary Affidavit clarifying the position whether the criminal case has been filed in the court and charge has been framed against the applicant. In the Supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 it is stated that no challan has been filed in the competent court. It is further submitted that the matter with regard to seeking the prosecution sanction has been sent to the competent authority by the Vigilance Department, which is pending consideration. 7. We have heard the learned counsel Sh. Dalip Sharma, for the applicant and Sh. R. Bharti, Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the respondents and gone through the file. The applicant retired on February 29, 1996 and more than three and half years have passed but still no penesionary benefits have been granted to the applicant. 7. We have heard the learned counsel Sh. Dalip Sharma, for the applicant and Sh. R. Bharti, Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the respondents and gone through the file. The applicant retired on February 29, 1996 and more than three and half years have passed but still no penesionary benefits have been granted to the applicant. It is not the case of the respondents that they do not want to make the payment of pensionary benefits, their only case is that they could not prepare the pension papers as files have been taken by the Vigilance Department on 30.11.1995. Due to this reason the pension case of the applicant could not be processed and sent to the Accountant General for the release of retiral benefits. It is not very sound and convincing explanation. The pension and gratuity are no longer any boundy to be distributed by the Government 1 to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment (see AIR 1985 SC 356). 8. It was the duty of the respondents to prepare the pension papers of the applicant in time. They could have taken the record form the Vigilance Department for the preparation of papers of the applicant for the payment of retiral been fits. They cannot take the shelter of the arguments that since the papers are lying in the Vigilance Department they are not in a position to do the needful in the absence of record. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case we allow the application and direct the respondents to finalise the case of the applicant within a period of four months from the date of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum commencing after the expiry of, two months from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made. The application stands finally disposed of in the Light of above with