ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to release gratuity and pay interest on the same and also to quash the order dated 07/04/2015. So far as the letter dated 07/04/2015 is concerned, the same clarifies that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & anr. (Civil Appeal No.6770/2013), decided on 14/08/2013 was not in relation to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and thus does not call for any interference. However, the claim of the petitioner for release of gratuity in terms of Pension Rules of 1996 is made out. 2. Rule 90-C of the Pension Rules of 1996 read with Rule 7 provides that if there are any judicial proceedings pending, the gratuity cannot be released and only provisional pension shall be released. 3. In the present case, the respondents withheld gratuity of the petitioner as there was a criminal case pending. However, the criminal case culminated into a judgment dated 26/04/2004 whereby the petitioner has been acquitted but the respondents submits that because appeal is preferred before the High Court, gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the interpretation taken by the Apex Court in the case of "Mathew M.Thomas and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax": (1999) 2 SCC 543 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the "that the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding." 5. While it is true that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has treated remedy of suit, appeal and second appeal as steps in series of civil proceedings but for the judicial proceedings as defined under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, view has already been taken by this Court relying upon the judgments of Division Bench and Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). 6. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of "N.K. Suparna v. Union of India" reported in 2005 (3) SLJ 507. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in SBCWP NO. 6. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of "N.K. Suparna v. Union of India" reported in 2005 (3) SLJ 507. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in SBCWP NO. 2460/2007 (Harbans Lal v. State of Raj. & Ors.) and order dated 4.4.2005 passed in DB Special Appeal No. 110/2005 (State of Raj. & Ors. v. Jogendra Singh) and order dated 08.2.2016 passed in SBCWP NO. 11990/2012 in order to submit that merely because the appeal is pending before the High Court the respondents cannot absolve themselves from releasing the benefits to the petitioner. In case of Harbans Lal this Court held as under:- "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 final one till its alteration by the appellate court. In the instant matter though an appeal has been 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." 8. In the case of Jogendra Singh supra), this Court has held as under:- "In our view, simply because the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before the appellate curt, the respondent cannot be deprived for the retiral benefits." 9. In the case of Bakhtawar Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors. decided on 08.2.2016 this court after concluding another judgment passed in SBCWP No. 10119/2010 Khuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held as under:- "Once, the petitioner stands acquitted, there is no ground to deny him his retiral benefits of gratuity and leave encasement. He would not be entitled to pension as he does not have qualifying service of ten years. The argument that benefits will be released from the date of acquittal is negated in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted and was denied retiral benefits for no fault of his. He would not be entitled to pension as he does not have qualifying service of ten years. The argument that benefits will be released from the date of acquittal is negated in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted and was denied retiral benefits for no fault of his. Note appended to Rule 89 of the Pension Rules also stipulates that in case a person is exonerated from judicial or departmental proceedings, the interest on delayed payment or retiral benefits will become payable from the date payment stands due." 10. A look at the provisions under Section 90 (1) (c) would show that the release of gratuity depends upon conclusion of a departmental or judicial proceedings. Thus, if a person has been acquitted in judicial proceedings or exonerated in departmental proceedings, the gratuity shall be released. 16 The question however remain as to whether judicial proceedings can be said to be pending if a criminal revision has been filed in the high court against the order of discharge? Under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1966 explanation thereto, it has been provided that the judicial proceedings shall be said to be instituted when a charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency before the competent court. 11. As per Cr.P.C., 1973 the criminal case is said to be concluded at two stages firstly when a person is discharged within meaning of Section 227 which reads as under: "227. Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." and secondly when he is acquitted after conducting of trial. 12. Thus, the judicial proceedings stand concluded immediately when a person has been discharged or acquitted. It is a well settled law that criminal revision filed before the High Court cannot be said to be a continuation of criminal trial or criminal proceedings against an individual within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Pension Rules of 1966, and, therefore, the embargo contained under Rule 90 (1) (c) would be no more applicable once a person has been discharged of the criminal offence. Thus, merely because of pendency of criminal revision or for that matter any appeal against an discharge or acquittal as the case may be, a person cannot be denied regular service benefits. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 07/04/2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release gratuity to the petitioner with interest @9% per annum from the date the gratuity was payable till the actual payment is made. The compliance of this order be made within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is submitted in their office. No costs.