JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner joined the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1954. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant and thereafter as Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation to man the post of Single Lock Officer in Attur. 2. The petitioner was due for further promotion in the year 1982, but due to allegation against petitioner with regard to shortage of 20,000 bags of Paddy, said to have been supplied to Thiru Huller A.Palanisamy, that the petitioner was not considered for promotion rather suspended from service on 06.05.1982. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension, filed W.P.No.11130 of 1983, but during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was reinstated and posted as Head Assistant in the office of the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer. 4. The department also initiated criminal proceedings against Thiru Huller A.Palanisamy, but the criminal case registered against Thiru Huller A.Palanisamy was quashed, by this Court holding, that the dispute was purely of civil nature. 5. The State of Tamil Nadu sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner, for the loss caused to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of the State Government, in granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner, by filing W.P.No.2222 of 1985. The operation of the impugned order was stayed. It was during pendency of writ petition, that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 7. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service, subject to final decision in W.P.No.2222 of 1985. The petitioner was granted provisional pension on 19.04.1991, but other retiral benefits, like leave salary, Provident Fund etc., were withheld. It was ordered, that these will be released to petitioner, on the disposal of the judicial proceedings. 8. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was finally dismissed. The petitioner was prosecuted in the criminal case, and finally stands acquitted from the criminal case. 9. There is no civil or criminal case pending against petitioner now, which can entitle respondents to withhold the retiral benefits due to the petitioner. The action of the respondents, in not releasing the full pension and other retiral benefit, is thus totally arbitrary, and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. 9. There is no civil or criminal case pending against petitioner now, which can entitle respondents to withhold the retiral benefits due to the petitioner. The action of the respondents, in not releasing the full pension and other retiral benefit, is thus totally arbitrary, and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. It may be noticed here that though in the writ petition, the petitioner claimed the relief of promotion to the post of Tahsildar with effect from 1985 with all consequential benefit, but at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this claim and restricted the relief to release of retiral benefit. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner cannot take advantage of acquittal in the criminal case, as acquittal of petitioner was by giving him benefit of doubt. 12. It is also contention of learned Additional Government Pleader, that an arbitration award has been passed in favour of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation against Thiru Huller A.Palanisamy, which is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in this Court. Till the disposal of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the release of retiral benefit. 13. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Once the petitioner has been acquitted, though by giving benefit of doubt, the retiral benefit due to petitioner cannot be withheld, as there is no civil or criminal proceedings pending against petitioner. 14. It is now well settled law, that right of pension is right to property, which is enforceable as fundamental right under the Constitution. The State Government cannot interfere with this right in absence of legal authority. 15. The contention of learned Additional Government Pleader, that due to pendency of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the retiral benefit cannot be released to petitioner, is on the face of it, is absurd and not sustainable in law. 16. Admittedly, there is no award passed against petitioner. The petitioner is not even party to the proceedings, therefore, decision of this Court on application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot have any bearing on the right of petitioner to release of retiral benefits. 17. 16. Admittedly, there is no award passed against petitioner. The petitioner is not even party to the proceedings, therefore, decision of this Court on application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot have any bearing on the right of petitioner to release of retiral benefits. 17. The action of respondents in not releasing retiral benefit can safely be said to be arbitrary, which amounts to colourable exercise of power, thus, cannot be sustained in law. 18. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to release retiral benefit to petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. from due date till date of payment forthwith and in any case not later than one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of this writ petition, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). 19. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.