1. Petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition, seeks release of his retiral benefits stated to be withheld by the respondents on account of his alleged involvement in some embezzlement having surfaced after his retirement. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner is stated to have been working as an Assistant Director in the respondent department and has retired from active service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. 3. That petitioner during his entire service career has never been involved in any misconduct not to speak of an embezzlement alleged against him after his retirement. 4. That petitioner despite having addressed series of representations requesting for processing, settling and releasing his pensionary benefits, has not been paid even a single penny despite lapse of more than four years. 5. That the inaction of the respondents has subjected the petitioner to mental agony and has the effect of violating the legal, statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioner. 6. After having been put to notice respondents appeared and filed reply. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The short controversy raised in the instant petition relates to retiral benefits of a retired employee, having been withheld for his alleged involvement in some embezzlement during his active service. In such a situation a question arises for determination, as to whether it is open for the State respondents to withhold the retiral benefits of a retired employee on such allegations? 9. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to find an answer to the question as the issue is well settled having been thrashed by the Courts of the Country many a times. The answer in unambiguous terms is an emphatic `NO' for the following reasons. 10. The Pension is a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee after giving his best to the institution he is serving and it is available to him in the nature of property and a right to property is available to every individual in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled State of Jharkhand & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported as AIR 2013 SC 3383 has held that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled State of Jharkhand & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported as AIR 2013 SC 3383 has held that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. 11. In the instant case there is not even an Executive Order by virtue of which the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have been withheld, therefore, this Court finds reason to interfere in the matter. 12. It is not open to respondents to even initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner as the law to that extent also is well settled. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Dr. Ghulam Mohammad Dhar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported as (2000) (I) SLJ 5 : JKJ Soft JKJ/8435, has held that an employee who has retired from service cannot be subjected to departmental inquiry.; 13. In the circumstances while allowing the writ petition, respondents, by a writ of Mandamus, are commanded to process, settle and release all post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st April, 2010. 14. Disposed of along with all CMPs.