JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following relief:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction : (1) continuance of the impugned order of suspension dated 24.02.87 (Annex.2) even after acquittal of the petitioner in the matter by the competent court, as back on 07th March, 1998 (Annex.1) may kindly be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the order of suspension from the date petitioner was acquitted by the competent court i.e. 07th March, 1998 ; with all consequential benefits of service to the petitioner ; (2) Consequently, the respondents may also kindly be directed to provide all service and regular retiral benefits to the petitioner ; (3) the respondents may kindly be saddled with exemplary cost for arbitrary depriving the petitioner from his right to receive regular service benefits, by no revoking order of suspension of the petitioner for 11 years of his acquittal ; (4) The cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Admittedly, petitioner was working on the post of Patwari under the control of District Collector (Land Revenue), Udaipur and a criminal case was registered against him under Section 5(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 09.02.88. 3. After investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner in the court of Sessions Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur and after due trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 07.03.98. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 13, due to registration of criminal case against him, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.02.87 and during trial, he remained under suspension till his date of retirement which is 31.02.96. 5. After retirement, petitioner is getting provisional pension only and all his retiral benefits so also service benefits have not been released so far by the respondents inspite of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him after due trial by the Sessions Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) cases, Udaipur. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an obligatory duty of the respondents that after acquittal from the charges against an employee to grant all retiral benefits including service benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an obligatory duty of the respondents that after acquittal from the charges against an employee to grant all retiral benefits including service benefits. But in this case, petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1987 and he remained suspended till his retirement w.e.f 31.12.1996 and thereafter, repeatedly, petitioner made request to the respondents to release his retiral benefits as well as service benefits but those benefits are not paid to the petitioner till today. 7. In this writ petition while filing reply by the State, it is pointed out that although petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offence under Section 5(1) (d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but against the said judgment dated 07.03.98 passed in Case No. 03/97, an appeal was preferred by the State which is pending in this Court, therefore, as per Rule 7(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, petitioner is not entitled for service benefits so also retiral benefits when the case is pending against the petitioner. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that once an employee is acquitted from the criminal charges levelled against him after due trial then, obviously he is required to be treated acquitted from the charges until and unless he is again convicted by the appellate court. 9. Only on the basis of pendency of criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal the respondents cannot deny the service benefits as well as retiral benefits. As per rules, as and when trial concludes, the respondents are under an obligation to grant retiral benefits and they cannot retain the retiral benefits and service benefits absolutely on the ground that appeal is against the judgment and appeal is pending. 10. In view of above, the respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits and services benefits because he was placed under suspension in the year 1997 and remained under suspension till his retirement and in between that period, petitioner was getting only subsistence allowance whereas, after acquittal, he became entitled to get all other services benefits. 11. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to complete the process for fixation and grant of all service benefits and retiral benefits within a period of six months. 11. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to complete the process for fixation and grant of all service benefits and retiral benefits within a period of six months. It is also made it clear that petitioner's case for interest after his acquittal may also be considered in accordance with Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.Petition allowed. *******