JUDGMENT 1. The grievance expressed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition in nutshell is that he was retired on Sept. 30, 1993 as Gram Sewak but the respondents have failed to grant him the benefit of pension, provident fund, gratuity and earned leave. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was the local President of Gram Sewak Employees Association and the then B.D.O. developed ill-will against the petitioner. With a view to harass the petitioner, the B.D.O. came out with a theory that some amount of Panchayat Samiti Khetri was due against the petitioner in order to prolong his pension case and to deprive him from G.P.F., Gratuity and earned leave salary. The alleged dues were not determined in any judicial proceedings or departmental enquiry. 3. The respondents in their reply averred that as the petitioner had failed to submit the complete accounts of fodder a sum of Rs. 2,73,000/- and odds were outstanding against him and therefore a sum of Rs. 33,000/- was forfeited from the G.P.F. of the petitioner and remaining amount is still due. Pension case of the petitioner was sent to Pension Department with a note that sum was due against the petitioner. 4. A look at the entire material on record reveals that on the basis of the inspection report the amount was found due against the petitioner. In my considered view the inspection report cannot be said to be the final adjudication of any controversy as to whether the amount was actually due. Such controversy can only be resolved in a judicial proceedings or departmental enquiry. My view finds support from the following observation expressed in Smt. Son Kanwar v. State of Raj, 1989 (1) RLR page 273 .' by the Division Bench of this Court "Audit report is not the final adjudication of any controversy as to whether the amount has been actually embezzled or not and it can only be established either in departmental enquiry or in judicial proceedings. Therefore only on the basis of the audit report without any notice to the petitioner and without any enquiry in the matter, it could not be said that the deceased Sobhag Singh had misappropriated any amount....." 5. Therefore only on the basis of the audit report without any notice to the petitioner and without any enquiry in the matter, it could not be said that the deceased Sobhag Singh had misappropriated any amount....." 5. I am thus inclined to hold that unless the controversy in respect of dues is resolved in judicial proceedings or departmental enquiry, the respondents cannot recover them from the pension or other retire able benefits of the petitioner. 6. Writ petition therefore succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of pension, provident fund, gratuity and earned leave within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest . 18% per annum. No costs.Petition allowed. *******