JUDGMENT 1. - This is a glaring case where a widow - Ms Kulvindra Kaur w/o late Shri Modan Singh has been deprived of her right to receive the retiral does of her deceased husband from the respondent-respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation after death of her husband on 01st July 2010 while he was serving as driver in the respondent RSRTC having been appointed as such on 01st February 1999 and thus, the petitioner's husband had served the respondent RSRTC for about 16 years prior to his death on 01st July 2010. 2. . Present writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 25th July 2012, after waiting for sufficient period for the payment of the retiral dues like Provident Fund and other benefits to her as per the service conditions of the respondent-RSRTC, about the entitlement of which there is no dispute from the side of the respondent-RSRTC. The prayers made in the writ petition are quoted below:- "9 The petitioner prays for the following reliefs. (I) The order dated 2.2.2012 i.e. Annexure-4 be set aside/quested (II) The Respondents be directed to pay the retirement benefits to the Petitioner with 9% interest from the date of entitlement. Any other relief for which the Petitioner is entitled, be granted." 3. Upon issuance of the notices, the respondents-RSRTC filed a reply to the writ petition in this Court on 21st October 2013, along with documents Annexure R/1 to R/3. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Harish Purohit initially urged that the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner-widow was withheld on the basis of a complaint received by the respondent-RSRTC alleging that the petitioner's husband late Shri Modan Singh was not actually 8th Class pass at the time of his appointment as Driver on 01st February 1994 and the concerned school has sent a communication to the Chief Manager of the respondent-RSRTC, Anoopgarh depot vide letter Annx.R/3 dated 22nd February 2011 that between the period 17.8.1968 to 1.3.1982 no student with the name of Modan Singh s/o Chanan Singh was admitted in the said school and the said school was upgraded from Primary to Upper-Primary with effect from 2.10.1979. 4. In para 6 of their reply, the respondents have also stated that - "After death of Shri Modan Singh, brother of deceased Shri Moden Singh submitted a complaint regarding Transfer Certificate (Annx. R/2)". 4. In para 6 of their reply, the respondents have also stated that - "After death of Shri Modan Singh, brother of deceased Shri Moden Singh submitted a complaint regarding Transfer Certificate (Annx. R/2)". to be a take document, whereupon the answering respondents wrote to the concerned school with respect to the Transfer Certificate vide Communication dated 22.2.2011, the school intimated to the said answering-respondent that at serial No. 462 of the Admission Register, name of one Gurjeet Kaur D/o Shri Nar Singh is entered and as per record of the school no person by the name of Moden Singh s/o Shri Chanan Singh was ever admitted from 17.8.1963 to 1.3.1982. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC, Harish Purohit also submitted that the order Annx.R/1 was passed by the Chief Manager of Anoopgarh depot of RSRTC on 12.7.2010 upon receiving the intimation of death of Sh. Moden Singh and the termination was not by way of an punishment imposed on him. He, however, fairly submitted that on the basis of Annx. R/3 Communication dated 11.2.2011 received from the concerned school, no notice was given to the present petitioner the widow of the deceased driver and there was no question of giving any notice to the employee himself since he had already expired or 1st July 2010 as the present intimation was received on 22nd February 2011 after his death. 6. The learnd counsel for the respondents also submitted that the deceased Government servant Shri Modan Singh was only CPF account-holder and had never given option for pension as per the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulation 1989 (here in after referred to as the Regulations of 1989), framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and therefore the present petitioner-widow of the deceased Driver would only be entitled to the payment of contributory fund account balance and gratuity but not the family pension as claimed. He relied upon following extract of the aforesaid Regulations of 1989 in support of his Contention:- "k) "Exciting employee" means an employee who is in service of he Corporation as on 1.4.1989. He relied upon following extract of the aforesaid Regulations of 1989 in support of his Contention:- "k) "Exciting employee" means an employee who is in service of he Corporation as on 1.4.1989. I) "Option" means written consent of the existing regular employee for pensionary and gratuity benefit along with the adoption of the General Provident Fund Regulation 1989or to continue as member of the existing CPF scheme covered under the EPF Act, 1952 within a period of 90 days from the date of publication of RSRTC Pension Regulations. Any existing employee who does not exercise the option within specified period of 90 days shall be deemed to have exercised option in favour of the Pension and CPF Regulations. The option once exercised or deemed to have been exercised shall be considered as final and no representation in this respect shall be considered valid for any revision. It will be the personal responsibility of the concerned employee/officer to ensure that his option reaches timely in the office of the Dy. G.M. (P&F), RSRTC, Jaipur." "27. Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity 1. The amount of gratuity payable to a Corporation employee would be calculated on the lines as is before allowed to the officers/employees of the State Government under the specific provisions of the pension rules as contained in Chapter XVII to XXVIII of the Rajasthan Service Rules as amended from time to time. 2. The gratuity payment shall be made by the Dy. G.M. (P&F) out of the Corporation funds. 28. Nominations Family Defined 1. For the purpose of this regulation "family" shall be defined in Rule 268 (d) of R.S.R. 2. A Corporation servant shall as soon as he completed five years qualifying service may make a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under regulations. Provided that if at that time of making the nomination the employee has family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person other than the members of his family. 29. Family Pension A family pension to a Corporation employee would be calculated on the similar lines as is being allowed to the families of officer/employees of the State Government under the specific provisions of Government of Rajasthan Pension Rules as amended from time to time. 30. Application for Grant of Pension and Gratuity (a) Applicability (1) These regs. 29. Family Pension A family pension to a Corporation employee would be calculated on the similar lines as is being allowed to the families of officer/employees of the State Government under the specific provisions of Government of Rajasthan Pension Rules as amended from time to time. 30. Application for Grant of Pension and Gratuity (a) Applicability (1) These regs. shall apply to all Corporation employees eligible for pension. (2) For the purpose of these regs. "Gratuity" means death-cum-retirement gratuity and includes service gratuity, it admissible under the regulations." 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Parihar and Mr. K.K. Bhati urged that after more than 16 years of service, there was no occasion to entertain any such complaint. The learned counsel further urged that if at all such complain was entertained by the respondent Corporation, particularly after the death of the Government servant on 1.7.2010. without confronting the material collect against the deceased Government servant, there was no valid rhyme or reason for the respondent-RSRTC to withhold the retiral dues to be paid to the present petitioner to which otherwise she was admittedly entitled. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated that petitioner's husband had duly passed 8th Class on 16th July 1980 vide the certificate produced as Annx. 1 and which Transfer Certificate has also been counter-signed by the District Education Officer (Elementary) Sriganganagar also on 20th May 1981 and without controverting the said document and establishing it to be false and forged, after loading due and proper inquiry in the presence of the concerned parties, authorities and the Government Servant when he was alive or after his death by confronting the present petitioner or any of the legal representative of the decease Government servant, the respondents can not question t5he correctness of said Certificate and denying ex post facto release of the retiral dues to the present petitioner which became immediately due to her on 1st July 2010 upon the death of her husband, much before even the said communication from school was received by them on 22nd February 2011. The learned counsel further prayed that such flimsy defence by the respondent RSRTC which is a public body and who is expected fairly and objectively, deserve to be rejected by this Court and a mandamus direction for payment of the reitral dues of her husband should be given to the respondent-RSRTC, with exemplary costs, with interest on the said retiral dues to be paid to the present petitioner. 9. I have heard the learned counsels at some length and perused the relevant record and documents. No case law has been cited by either of the counsels. 10. Having given a fair and objective consideration to the relevant documents on record and pleadings of the learned counsels, this Court is fully satisfied that the respondent-RSRTC has illegally and arbitrarily deprived the present petitioner of the retiral dues of her deceased husband due to be paid to her upon the death of her husband - Shri Modan Singh, who served the respondent-RSRTC for 16 years, having been appointed as such with effect form 1st February 1994 and having been admittedly regularised in that service by order No. 1441 dated 15.3.2004 passed by the respondent-RSRTC as mentioned in the impugned order Annx. 4 dated 2nd February 2012 itself whereby the said relief was also denied to the present petitioner. 11. Admittedly said enquiry from the concerned school has been made by the respondent-RSRTC on the basis of alleged complaint field by the brother of the deceased Government servant referred to in para 6 of the reply of the respondent-RSRTC before this Court. Never the copy of said complaint was supplied to the present petitioner much less to the Government servant as question of serving the same could not arise after his death on 1st July 2010. An ex parte inquiry was conducted by the respondent-RSRTC and on the basis of communication Annx. R/3 dated 22.2.2011 of the concerned school, the respondent-RSRTC concluded that the appointment given to the husband of the present petitioner, way back on 1.2.1994 was on the basis of a false and forged Transfer Certificate purportedly issued by the said school and therefore, the present petitioner was not entitled to the release of retiral benefits of her husband. R/3 dated 22.2.2011 of the concerned school, the respondent-RSRTC concluded that the appointment given to the husband of the present petitioner, way back on 1.2.1994 was on the basis of a false and forged Transfer Certificate purportedly issued by the said school and therefore, the present petitioner was not entitled to the release of retiral benefits of her husband. Not only this, even this communication of the school was never confronted or given to the present petitioner before passing the impugned order Annx 4 dated 2.2.2012 denying to her the said relief and thus, the breach of the principles of natural justice in the present case by the concerned authority of the respondent-RSRTC is admitted and proved beyond any pale of doubt. 12. The Transfer Certificate Annx. 1 produced by the petitioner apparently bears the signature of the Head master of said school and also counter-signature of the District Education Officer, a Government authority unless a proper inquiry by summoning these two officers who signed the said Certificate and the person who officers who signed the said Certificate and the person who has now given the letter Annx. R/3 dated 11.2.2011 and the petitioner hers if was held by the respondent-RSRTC, no conclusion could have been drawn by them about the falseness or fake ness of said Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner. Besides this for the aforesaid sham defence taken by the respond Respondent-RSRTC this Court is also constrained to note that said inquiry was not only held ex parte but was initiated on a complaint field by brother of the deceased Government servant, which document even has been withheld from this Court by the respondent-RSRTC for the reasons best known to them. When, why and who really made this complaint, is not known a mere averment in the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent-RSRTC that such a complaint was filed by brother of the deceased Government servant and what made them to initiate and hold such inquiry at the back of the petitioner is not established by the respondent-RSRTC. 13. 13. No sufficient explanation has also been given by the respondent-RSRTC as to why at the time of appointment of petitioner husband-Shrfi Moden Singh in the year 1994 and even at the rime of his confirmation in the year 2004 which appointment and confirmation is supposed to have been made after due verification of the documents furnished for such employment, why no such proper verification was made at that point of time itself and if not made, what action has been taken by the respondent-RSRFTC against officials in this regard; before choosing to now do the same and deny the payment of retiral dues to the widow of the deceased Government servant, who had served as a Driver in the respondent-RSRTC for long 16 years, which undoubtedly entitled the present petitioner receive those reitral dues viz. CPF account balance and gratuity etc. from the respondent-RSRTC. 14. This Court also can not appreciate any good reason why case for release of the retiral dues was not processed and sanctioned soon after the death of husband of the present petitioner on 1st July 2010 itself and on the contrary, a very unusual kind of order was passed by the Chief Manager or respondent-RSRTC vide Annx. R/1 dated 12th July 2010, mere eleven days after the death of the Government servant seeking to terminate his services and severing the employer-employee relationship on account of such death and thereafter for good two years the petitioner was kept waiting for the payment of the retiral dues of her on 2nd February 2012, about one and half years after the death of her husband, denying the same. 15. Thus, there is not even an iota or semblance of reason on the part of respondent Corporation to have withheld the payment of the reitral dues of her husband to the present petitioner and deny it ultimately by the impugned order Annx. 4 dated 2md February 2012 on wholly extraneous consideration like the present ex parte communication made by the school, on an anonymous complaint allegedly filed by the brother of the deceased Government servant, which document has not been even produced by the respondent-RSRTC before this Court for the reasons best known to them and therefore, an adverse inference of there being actually no such complaint, can be drawn against them. 16. 16. In the present case, a poor widow lad of a lowly paid employee in the position of a Driver was left to fend for herself for all these years after the death of her husband on 1st July 2010 and as the chance would have it, the case could be taken up for final disposal by this Court through the jammed dockets of the Court only now in October 2014, after four years of the death of her husband. The respondents should, therefore definitely make good this loss to the petitioner, by payment of not only interest on the delayed payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner but also pay the costs, so that at least for future they do not take such sham defences in the courts of law and act fairly objectively, while considering the cases of this nature where the widow or family of deceased Government servant, who served the institution for long number of years and hoped to receive their due amounts with promptitude and they are not made to suffer in the manner which the present case glaringly demonstrates. 17. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed, with costs of Rs. 5,000/- The respondent-RSRTC is directed to immediately pay all the retiral benefits viz. CPF account balance and gratuity due to petitioner husband to the present petitioner within period of two months from today, with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 1st July 2010 the date of death of her husband till the actual date of payment. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. *******