JUDGMENT 1. - The present petitioner, Tara Chand Agarwal, who is retired Executive Engineer, from the respondent Public Works Department (PWD) on 31.01.2002, has not been paid his retiral dues since then for last 10 years and the present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 12.03.2012 seeking following relief(s): "In the said premises and to meet the ends of justice the petitioner humbly prays that Your Honor may benevolently be pleased to allow this petition for writ in the nature of Mandamus and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i. That, by an appropriate writ, order or direction the communication dated 18.10.11 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed. ii. That, the respondents be directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner with immediate effect. iii.That, the Respondents be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum upon the delayed payment from the day it became due. iv.Any other appropriate order or direction as may be considered proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed. v. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. It appears from the record that just prior to his retirement, a case under Section 13 (1) (e) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. was instituted against the present petitioner, however, in the Criminal Case No.45/2004 arising out of F.I.R. No.107/2010 registered at Out Post ACB, Sirohi, the learned Sessions Judge, (P,C, Act Cases), Jodhpur, honourably acquitted the petitioner and on the contrary found in its judgment dated 24.03.2011 that instead of disproportionate higher assets, as against his known sources of income were in fat assets were lesser than his known source of income, namely, of Rs. 7,81,304/- to the known income source of Rs. 14,35,715/- for the considered number of years. 7,81,304/- to the known income source of Rs. 14,35,715/- for the considered number of years. The relevant paras No.82 and 83 of the judgment of the said competent court dated 24.03.2011 are quoted herein below for ready reference:- " 82- mDr foopsuk ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDr rkjkpUn vxzoky us v/kh'kklh vfHk;Urk] lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx ds in ij yksdlsod dh gSfl;r ls inLFkkfir jgrs gq;s o"kZ 1967 ls ekpZ] 2001 rd dh vof/k esa vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq;s viuh oS/k vk; ds Kkr L=ksrksa ls vftZr oS/k vk; ,oa _.kksa ds foijhr vf/kd lEifr;kWa vftZr dh tks mDr vof/k esa vfHk;qDr ds dCts 7]81]304@& :i;s dh ifjlEifr;kWa ikbZ xbZ tks vfHk;qDr rkjkpUn dh oS/k L=ksrksa ls vk; 14]35]715@& :i;s dh rqyuk esa de ikbZ xbZ gSA vr% vfHk;qDr rkjkpUn vxzoky Hkz0fu0v0 dh /kkjk 13 ( 1 ) ( bZ ) lifBr /kkjk 13 ( 2 ) ds vjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA @@vkns'k@@ 83- fu"d"kZr% vfHk;qDr rkjkpUn vxzoky] rRdkyhu v/kh'kklh vfHk;Urk] lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj dks Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 13 ( 1 ) ( bZ ) lifBr /kkjk 13 ( 2 ) ds vUrxZr vkjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA vkjksih ds fjgk;lh edku dh QnZ ryk'kh ds nkSjku tCr fd;s x;s leLr nLrkost ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy@fuxjkuh vkjksih rkjkpUn vxzoky dks fu;ekuqlkj ykSVk;k tkosA tCrlqnk fjdkWMZ lEcfU/kr foHkkx dks ckn fe;kn vihy Hkstk tkosA vfHk;qDr ds iwoZ ds tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA " 3. The State Government, however, has filed an appeal against the said acquittal order and the said appeal is said to be pending before this Court. The particulars of such appeal are not available with either of the learned counsels for the parties. 4. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013, decided on 14th August 2013) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.2460/2007, decided on 28.10.2009) and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013, decided on 14th August 2013) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.2460/2007, decided on 28.10.2009) and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jogendra Singh reported in 2005 (4) RDD 716 (Raj.) (DB) and urged that even if during the pendency of such criminal trial against the present petitioner, retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be withheld, much-less now with the honourable acquittal of the present petitioner by the competent court; and merely because the State has filed an appeal against such acquittal of the present petitioner, which may take years to be decided and the petitioner can also succeed there with State losing its appeal, but till then the petitioner cannot be deprived of his retiral dues. 5. He also submitted that like in the State of Jharkhand, there are not even administrative instructions in the State of Rajasthan for so withholding of the retiral dues of the petitioner and without passing any order in this regard, the respondent- Department is just sitting tight over the retiral dues of the present petitioner. 6. Upon issuance of the notices, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents while admitting the fact of acquittal of the present petitioner by the competent court vide the judgment dated 23.04.2011, however, only reiterated that since appeal against the acquittal order is pending in this Court, the respondents were justified in withholding the retiral dues. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the judgment cited at Bar. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand (supra) has dealt-with the legal position in the following manner and discussing the earlier judgments in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. Union of India reported in 1968 (1) SCR 111 and so also in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand (supra) has dealt-with the legal position in the following manner and discussing the earlier judgments in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. Union of India reported in 1968 (1) SCR 111 and so also in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 describing the right of a retired Government employee to receive such pension, which is included in the terms 'property', the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even the administrative instructions permitting such withholding of the retiral dues in such cases, cannot supplant the Rules and in absence of any specific rule in this regard for permitting such withholding the retiral dues, the respondent State could not withhold even a part of the retiral dues and even though substantial retiral dues, viz. pension, gratuity etc. were already paid to the employee, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the State appeal in the following terms:- "11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for withholding of the pension/ gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. 13. In State of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651 , this Court recognised that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property". 14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 15. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different. 16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jogendra Singh (supra), which is although a short order, directed the release of the retiral dues in similar circumstances, even though the matter in the present case, the State appeal against the acquittal of the Government employee was pending. 10,000/- each." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jogendra Singh (supra), which is although a short order, directed the release of the retiral dues in similar circumstances, even though the matter in the present case, the State appeal against the acquittal of the Government employee was pending. Another coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal (supra), directed the payment of retiral dues once the Government servant was acquitted from the charges leveled against him in the criminal trial. The relevant extract of the said judgment in the case of Harbans Lal (supra) is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "By the judgment dated 14.9.2004 passed by the competent court the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges for which he was tried. After acquittal no reason survives to detain benefits of the petitioner including consideration for grant of salary beyond the subsistence allowance already paid. It is well settled that the order passed by the trial court is fina one till its alteration by the appellant court. In the instant matter though an appeal has ben filed by the respondents giving challenge to the judgment dated 14.9.2004 but merely on the basis of the pendency of the appeal it cannot be said that acquittal of the petitioner at this stage is not final . In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow all ancillary service benefits to the petitioner consequent to revocation of the suspension and his acquittal under the judgment dated 14.9.2004. The issue regarding grant of salary to the petitioner with interest is required to be considered by the respondents as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs." 10. Thus, the legal position in this regard appears to be fairly settled and the only Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996, which deals with the withholding of the full pension, or a part thereof, depends upon the findings against the Government servant in any Departmental Enquiry or the judicial proceedings and that too subject to the orders passed by the Governor of the State, under the said Rule. This is not the fact situation in the present case and it appears that the respondents have withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner without any valid rhyme or reason. 11. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition filed the petitioner deserves to be allowed and there is no sufficient reason to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner and merely because the appeal against the acquittal order is pending before this Court, such retiral dues cannot be withheld either fully or partly. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith. The respondent- State will also pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of such retiral dues had become due be paid upon his retirement in the year 2002 on 31.01.2002 and if such arrears are not paid to him within a period of three months from today, the rate of interest shall stand increased to 9% per annum. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******