JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction against respondents to release his retiral benefits such as leave encashment, GSLI (Group Insurance) with interest on arrears @12% per annum. 2. Apposite facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that petitioner is a retired employee of second respondent Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., of which apex body is Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (RCDF). At the time of his superannuation, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Manager. As a matter of fact, while in service, a dispute cropped up regarding retirement age of the employees of various milk unions working under RCDF and on behalf of various employees of milk unions writ petitions were filed before the Court praying for increase in retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Ventilating his grievance in this behalf, petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No.1943/10. At the threshold, while issuing notices, Court passed interim order on 25th of February 2010 not to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years. On the strength of interim order, petitioner continued to serve its employer uptil 18th of March 2011. The writ petition was disposed of following the judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.165/10 (Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Kanti Lal Ojha & Ors.). After disposal of his writ petition, Managing Director of second respondent convened its meeting on 22nd of March 2011 and resolved not to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees. Pursuant to the decision, Managing Committee passed an order dated 24th of March 2011 declaring the petitioner retired from services w.e.f. 28th of February 2010, i.e., on attaining the age of 58 years. Retiring petitioner and other employees from retrospective dates led to discontentment among employees and they submitted their objections that retirement of an individual cannot be from retrospective effect. Considering the objections of various employees and petitioner, third respondent Managing Director of the milk union solicited legal opinion and thereafter in adherence of legal opinion issued office order dated 31st of March 2011 altering date of superannuation of the petitioner from 28th of 3. February, 2010 to 24th of March, 2011. Considering the objections of various employees and petitioner, third respondent Managing Director of the milk union solicited legal opinion and thereafter in adherence of legal opinion issued office order dated 31st of March 2011 altering date of superannuation of the petitioner from 28th of 3. February, 2010 to 24th of March, 2011. When the petitioner was in service, Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department made amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 whereby retirement/death gratuity payable to a government employee was enhanced from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs w.e.f. 1st of January 2007. In adherence of the amendment made in the Rules of 1996, second respondent also increased the amount of retirement/death gratuity of its employees from 3.5 lakhs to 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1st of June, 2010. After issuance of necessary approval by the District Collector, Nagaur, gratuity amount payable to the employees of second respondent was increased and accordingly petitioner was paid gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.8,56,408 under order dated 19th of April, 2011. Though gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner but the other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and GSLI were withheld by the respondents. For claiming these retiral benefits, petitioner submitted various representations but no heed was paid by the respondents. In the writ petition, it is specifically averred by the petitioner that to the best of his knowledge Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has already forwarded payment of Group Insurance (GSLI) in favour of petitioner by Cheque No.520620 dated 13th of April, 2011, therefore, withholding of said payment is a glaring example of arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondents. 4. On behalf of respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted wherein for withholding payment of leave encashment and GSLI, it is averred that the gratuity amount paid to the petitioner was in excess to the tune of Rs.5,06,408, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the retiral benefits which he has claimed. Yet another objection raised is that order Annex.4 was passed by the then Managing Director, N.K. Bora, which facilitated excess payment of gratuity amount to him, and therefore, Mr. Bora was subjected to enquiry alongwith petitioner under the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Disciplinary Action & Appeal) Regulations 1980 (for short, 'Regulations') and therefore, claim of the petitioner for the desired retiral benefits is not sustainable. 5. Bora was subjected to enquiry alongwith petitioner under the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Disciplinary Action & Appeal) Regulations 1980 (for short, 'Regulations') and therefore, claim of the petitioner for the desired retiral benefits is not sustainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record. 6. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry initiated against Mr. N.K. Bora as well as petitioner was challenged by Mr. Bora before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1575/2012 which was allowed on 1st of October, 2015. While allowing the said writ petition the Court has declared the enquiry invalid and quashed the consequential order. The operative part of the order reads as under: "A perusal of the finding of the so called Inquiry reveals that the authority has totally ignored the facts that the order dated 24.03.2011 was amended and the date of retirement was amended from 28.02.2010 to 24.03.2011 and based on its assumption that Ram Gopal Sharma had retired on 28.02.2010 came to the conclusion that wrong payment was made and though it is not within the purview of an Inquiry Officer to suggest punishment, it proceeded to also suggest that so called excess amount to the tune of Rs.5,06,408/- be recovered from the petitioner. The report of the Inquiry Officer on its face is wholly laconic and has failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and documents, which pertain to the subject matter of inquiry and as such the same could not be relied on for the purpose of passing of the order (Annex.- 13) by the respondents. Besides the above, there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the Regulations, before ordering recovery vide order (Annex.-13), as the same is in the nature of minor penalty in terms of Clause 6 of the Regulations, the order could not have been passed without following the procedure under Clause 11(a) of the Regulations i.e. without serving a statement of allegations on the petitioner, the notice (Annex.-10) cannot be termed as statement of allegations. Further it is also seen that once the notice was also given to Ram Gopal Sharma, the Inquiry Officer has chosen not to even suggest that the so called excess amount be recovered from the said Ram Gopal Sharma, which clearly shows the pre-dereliction of Inquiry Officer and the respondents qua the petitioner and, therefore, on that count also the impugned order (Annex.-13) cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 10.02.2012 (Annex.-13) is quashed and set aside." 7. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1st of October, 2015 was challenged before Division Bench by way of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1088/15 and the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 3rd of August 2016 dismissed the appeal. 8. Upon examining the matter in its entirety, it is crystal clear that the very edifice of denial of desired retiral benefits to the petitioner is so called laconic order passed by Mr. N.K. Bora and the enquiry was initiated in this behalf against Mr. Bora and the petitioner. Since the enquiry against Mr. Bora has been quashed, obviously, no action to the detriment of petitioner so as to deny him retiral benefits can be sustained. Undeniably, retirement order cannot be from retrospective date and considering that situation, respondents took a decision to retire the petitioner from services w.e.f 24th of March, 2011. The decision to enhance gratuity amount came into offing in the interregnum period when petitioner was serving the respondents and accordingly he was allowed retirement/death gratuity. 9. The contention of the respondents that petitioner was erroneously paid enhanced amount of gratuity is also not acceptable because said amount cannot be adjusted by respondents against the benefit of leave encashment dehors the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 91-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. As regards GSLI also, no such adjustment is permissible. Therefore, in totality of circumstances, action of the respondents in withholding retiral benefits of the petitioner such as leave encashment and GSLI cannot be sustained. 10. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay benefit of leave encashment and GSLI to the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.