Hon'ble VYAS, J.— In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for quashing communication/order dated 3.9.2007 (Annex. 3) and grant retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner late Mohan Lal who was working as Driver with the respondents and died while in service on 18.10.2006. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant family pension to the petitioner in accordance with rules and her case may also be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner late Mohan Lal was substantively working on the post of Driver and he died while in service but no retiral benefits have been released on the ground that in the Motor Accident Claims Case No. 639/1998 compensation was awarded against the Jaipur Nagar Nigam and, for which, attachment-warrant was issued against the Jaipur Nagar Nigam. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in its judgment dated 8.7.2004 passed an award against the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, therefore, to recover the amount of award from the retiral benefits of late Mohan Lal vide communication/order Annex. 3 dated 3.9.2007 the Commissioner informed the widow of late Mohan Lal to deposit Rs. 4,53,970/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such award was passed against late Mohan Lal in his personal capacity but award was passed by the Tribunal with categorical finding that the vehicle was being used for and under the direction of the respondent authorities during the course of employment by late Mohan Lal at the time of the accident; meaning thereby, the respondents cannot recover the said amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the Municipal Corporation and late Mohan Lal, husband of the petitioner jointly and severally. Deceased husband of the petitioner was performing his duties being employee of the Corporation, therefore, for his act which he was discharging while on duty the liability is upon the Corporation, therefore, the order impugned is contrary to law, by which, the widow of late Mohan Lal and his legal heirs have been directed to deposit the entire amount of award passed vide judgment dated 8.7.2004. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to act of late Mohan Lal award was passed against the Corporation, therefore, both Municipal Corporation and late Mohan Lal are jointly and severally held liable and as such the order of recovery is perfectly legal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the record that late Mohan Lal was working as Driver in the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, he died while performing duties in the service of the respondent Corporation on 18.10.2006 and, after his death, instead of granting retiral benefits a notice was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal against the Municipal Corporation and late Mohan Lal jointly and severally. It is settled proposition of law that every act performed by any employee while discharging duties the liability is required to be borne by the employer. The employee cannot be held responsible to pay compensation but the Corporation denied its liability and directed the widow and legal heirs of late Mohan Lal to deposit the amount of award for which attachment order was passed. In my opinion, order Annex. 3 is not sustainable in law because it is contrary to the basic principles of law. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for all retiral benefits and is not liable to pay the amount of compensation which is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur against the Municipal Corporation and late Mohan Lal jointly and severally and respondents have illegally denied the retiral benefits to the petitioner. 7. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Order Annex. 3 dated 3.9.2007 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release entire retiral benefits to the petitioner and grant family pension to the petitioner as per rules. The respondents are further directed to consider the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment in accordance with the Rules of 1996, within period of three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. 8. It is also made clear that if the retiral benefits are not released by the respondents within a period of three months, then, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 9. No order as to costs.