Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to release the benefit of Gratuity and Leave Encashment to the petitioner without any further delay alongwith interest in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Respondents in Para-6 of their response have stated as under:- “6. That the contents of para 6 & 7 of the civil writ petition are wrong, incorrect and denied. In reply there to it is submitted that the FIR No.8/2006 was lodged against the petitioner on 02.09.2006 when he was in the employment of the answering corporation. The criminal proceedings was also initiated against him on 19.01.2013 before his superannuation from his service on 30.06.2013 and the criminal trial under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1998, is pending consideration before Ld. Special Judge (F) Shimla, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the benefits of gratuity and leave encashment as per provision clause 6 of sub rule (1) of Rules 69 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. More over the representation of the petitioner for the retiral benefits has been duly attended by the answering respondent and the matter was also taken up with respondent no.1 who vide Annexure R-4 and R-6 has conveyed the answering respondent to deal with the issue raised by the petitioner in terms of Rules 69 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, consequently the answering respondents in the face of pendency of criminal case as referred above against the petitioner has not released his gratuity and leave encashment.” 3. In our considered view, petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take action and pass necessary orders in terms of the stand taken before us, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Needless to add, decision shall be taken on the basis of material so placed by the petitioner and the law laid by the apex Court in Union of India and others vs. B. DEV, (1998) 7 SCC 691 , Jarnail singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others, (1993) 1 SCC 47 and D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India and others, (1990) 4 SCC 314 . Liberty granted to the petitioner to place on record additional material if so required. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.