Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard the parties. 2. The controversy between the parties in this application is limited to the question of payment of gratuity and leave encashment dues with regard to one Rajendra Prasad who was an Assistant in the Aurangabad Collectorate and admittedly died on 15.9.1991 while in service. 3. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the widow and other heirs of aforesaid Rajendra Prasad praying for a direction to the respondents to pay family pension, gratuity, leave encashment dues and all other death-cum retiral benefits on account of death of said Rajendra Prasad while in service. 4. Through a counter affidavit the respondents have claimed that they have withheld only the gratuity payable to the petitioners on account of pendency of a criminal proceeding which arose against the said Rajendra Prasad and 14 others on the basis of a F.I.R. filed on 3.2.1986. The respondents have claimed that other dues payable on death of Rajendra Prasad have already been paid but no specific reply has been given with regard to claim for dues on account of leave encashment. The respondents have relied upon a circular of the State Government as contained in annexure-A which provides that decision to pay death-cum-retiral gratuity to a Government Servant against whom a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending shall be taken only on conclusion of such proceeding meaning thereby in the light of the judgment and finding given in such proceeding. 5. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that since the petitioner died on 15.9.1991 therefore the said fact was brought to the notice of the criminal court and on that basis, as appears from annexure-2, the court accepted Rajendra Prasad to be dead and hence the criminal proceeding against Rajendra Prasad came to an end on 25.11.1995 itself when the concerned criminal court accepted and noted the factum of death of accused Rajendra Prasad. 6. It is well settled that when a criminal proceeding comes to an end after the death of the accused, the only question remains as to whether in a situation like the present one, can an order of recovery etc. 6. It is well settled that when a criminal proceeding comes to an end after the death of the accused, the only question remains as to whether in a situation like the present one, can an order of recovery etc. be based against the deceased employee and more so on the basis of such an innocuous order by which a criminal proceeding comes to an end without any finding of guilt against such an employee. The circular also mentions that decision may be taken in the light of final determination in a judicial or departmental proceeding. There being nothing adverse against the deceased Rajendra Prasad found so far in departmental or judicial proceeding, it is difficult to hold that the respondents can still proceed to deduct, withhold or withdraw any part of family pension, gratuity or retiral dues payable on account of death of said Rajendra Prasad while in service. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay all the legal dues including arrears etc. payable to the petitioners on account of death of Rajendra Prasad within a period of 3 months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.