JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector with the respondent-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited (hereafter RSGSML) on 14.7.1983. In due course he was promoted as Manager in which capacity he came to be posted at the RSGSM Bottling Plant, Jhunjhunu. During that posting a FIR No. 66/2005 came to be registered on or about 7.04.2005 against 9 persons including the petitioner on the basis of omnibus allegations at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Chowki- Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu) for offences under Sections 13(1) (c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act of 1988) and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in respect of alleged transport of 185 bottles of liquor from the bottling plant without a gate pass and without payment of permit fee. The FIR recorded that on the source/information with the ACB of unauthorized movement of liquor bottles from the bottling plant of RSGSML at Jhunjhunu and its seizure, albeit the permit fee was subsequently paid and gate pass also so generated it was of no consequence for reason of being an afterthought and a cover up. On investigation into the FIR in issue, the police (ACB) sought sanction for the petitioners prosecution alongwith others named in the FIR which was so granted on or about 10.7.2008. That sanction for prosecution came to be challenged in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1439/2008 by the petitioner as also by the other accused separately. Albeit initially an interim order to the benefit of the petitioners was passed by the Court, the Criminal Misc. Petition itself came to be dismissed on 8.12.2015. Since then, admittedly no further progress in the investigation in FIR No. 66/2005 has been made and challan not yet been filed even as of today. Meanwhile the petitioner, earlier under suspension, which was then revoked on 29.7.2009, has since superannuated on 30.6.2017. The petitioners gratuity and leave encashment to which he was entitled to under the operating service Rules i.e. the RSGSML Employees Service Rules, 2000 (hereafter the Rules of 2000) not having been paid, he is before this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions. 2. Reply opposing the petition has been filed, as has also been an additional affidavit of one Jay Anant Mathur, Senior Manager (A&P), RSGSML to the same end. 3. 2. Reply opposing the petition has been filed, as has also been an additional affidavit of one Jay Anant Mathur, Senior Manager (A&P), RSGSML to the same end. 3. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj appearing for the petitioner submitted that reliance by the respondent- RSGSML on the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereafter the Rules of 1996) as amended from time to time to deny the petitioner due gratuity and leave encashment is wholly misplaced as the said Rules are not applicable to the employees of RSGSML. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj pointed out that no challan against the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 66/2005 lodged for offences under Sections 13(1) (c), (d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, has yet been filed despite 4 years lapsing the dismissal of the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner against the grant of prosecution sanction. The petitioner cannot in the circumstances even remotely be categorized as an accused, the sanction for prosecution notwithstanding. Further a pending criminal investigation in a FIR even otherwise is not a "judicial proceeding". Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj then submitted that the RSGSML Employees Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Scheme on which reliance has been placed for denial of gratuity to the petitioner cannot even otherwise operate in the cross-hair of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereafter the Act of 1972) wherein Section 4(6)(b) provides that an employee can be denied the right to gratuity only in the event of his termination following an enquiry for reasons of misconduct or otherwise for reasons of being convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Such a situation does not obtain against the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj submitted that in the circumstances, the withholding of the petitioners gratuity and leave encashment (earned leave) is wholly illegal as also arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. Correspondingly the petitioner is entitled to a direction by the Court to the respondent-RSGSML that his due gratuity and leave encashment be released with interest for the period of unjustified delay in their payment. 4. Per contra, Mr. Correspondingly the petitioner is entitled to a direction by the Court to the respondent-RSGSML that his due gratuity and leave encashment be released with interest for the period of unjustified delay in their payment. 4. Per contra, Mr. Dharmendra Jain counsel for the respondent- RSGSML submitted that as the petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 66/2005, registered at Police Station (Anti Corruption Bureau) for offences under Sections 13(1) (c), (d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC-all offences of moral turpitude. Though admittedly as per the information from ACB a challan against the petitioner following investigation in the FIR against him has not yet been filed. Under the RSGSML Employees Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Scheme (hereafter the Scheme), which attracts to the petitioner as an employee of RSGSML he is not entitled for release of his gratuity, which in fact is liable to be forfeited. Mr. Dharmendra Jain further submitted that aside of the above withholding gratuity of the petitioner and non payment of leave encashment is justified by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereafter the Rules of 2008) which permit retiral benefits including gratuity to be withheld where a Government servant is suffering judicial proceedings-disciplinary or criminal on the date of his superannuation. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. RSGSML is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is an instrumentality of the State Government but not the State itself. The employees of RSGSML are not the employees of the State Government. There can be no serious quarrel about this proposition. In this view of the matter, reliance placed by counsel for the RSGSML based on the additional affidavit of Jay Anant Mathur, Senior Manager (A&P), RSGSML is wholly misdirected and without merit. Further FIR No. 66/2005 has indeed been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Chowki- Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu) for offences under Sections 13(1) (c), (d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC but no challan has yet been filed thereon even as of today, even after over about 4 years having lapsed since the dismissal of the petitioners Criminal Misc. Petition against sanction for prosecution on 8.12.2015. Petition against sanction for prosecution on 8.12.2015. On the issue of right to gratuity to a superannuated employee, the Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others (2007)1 SCC 663 has held that it is statutory in nature and an employee has the right to receive gratuity and such gratuity can not be forfeited unless the precondition set out in Section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1972 are made out. Section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1972 read as under:- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. (b) the gratuity payable to an employee (may be wholly or partially forfeited)- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. 7. None of the above preconditions under Section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1972 for forfeiting of gratuity are made out. Further the RSGSML Employees Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Scheme cannot override the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Even otherwise note-1 of the appendix to the Scheme provides that gratuity shall be wholly forfeited in case of termination of service of a Member for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (b) for an act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. A bare reading of the said note to Appendix-1 of the aforesaid Scheme indicates that the termination has to precede the forfeiture of gratuity. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not terminated from service. Contrarily he was superannuated in terms of Rule 3.36 of the Rules of 2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not terminated from service. Contrarily he was superannuated in terms of Rule 3.36 of the Rules of 2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. On this count there is therefore no succor to the defence of the respondents in denying the petitioners due gratuity by resort to the scheme. As far as the denial of leave encashment is concerned neither in the reply to the petition nor even in the additional affidavit any legal foundation therefore has been set out. Reliance placed on the Rules of 1996 amended from time to time for this purpose in the course of argument, as earlier held, is wholly inapposite for reasons of the petitioner not being in service of the State Government and not being its employee. For the reasons detailed above, I am of the considered view that there was no legally plausible ground at all for the respondents to deny the petitioner, on his superannuation, either his due gratuity or leave encashment. The denial is merely symptomatic of the grossly arbitrary and mechanical approach not unusually noticed by the Court where the State Government and its instrumentalities are called upon to take decisions qua the rights conferred on their employees. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 has held that justice is not the function of the courts alone; it is also the duty of other state functionaries when they are required to take decision on matters before them. Aside of the above the obligation to adhere to the laws attaches to every organ of the State. That however has not been done in the instant case. No right conferred by law can be denied unless so statutorily provided. No feudal discretion obtains to any authority. Act powers are limited by law. 8. It would be well to note that the infrastructure of the Courts as also the Courts intellectual and mental capacity even at its full cannot suffice to deal with unnecessary disputes generated in societys everyday existence. No feudal discretion obtains to any authority. Act powers are limited by law. 8. It would be well to note that the infrastructure of the Courts as also the Courts intellectual and mental capacity even at its full cannot suffice to deal with unnecessary disputes generated in societys everyday existence. Where the Rule of law on which the edifice of the country stands, by deliberate design, unconcern, non-application of mind, cynicism or deliberate acts/omission is undermined day to day, the Court cannot be expected to make routine corrections and be ready to make more of the same while the State/instrumentalities continue with their way of acting contrary to law. It is required that where notice on a petition is issued by the Court and is served on the State or its instrumentalities, such notices are processed in the right earnest to evaluate whether a legal right agitated has indeed been contravened. If it found to so have been, corrective action is the obligation of the State/Instrumentalities. Mechanical and unthinking defences routinely made, leaving the Court to negate such defences and pass appropriate orders can no longer be par for the course. Such an approach of the State/instrumentalities in effect requires the Courts to take a decision on matters which fairly and justly ought to have been taken by the respondents themselves. In this mechanical approach of the Government and its instrumentalities epitomized in several instances of their counsel requiring the court to pass appropriate orders without rendering any effective assistance, lies the adding to the colossal arrears in Courts leading to adverse public comment which only brings down its dignity in the public eye. This is not a happy situation in a country governed by the rule of law or at least supposed to be. The Court has in the circumstance no option except to do what it can to message the need for proactive participation by the State and its instrumentalities in the search for justice. That messaging in my considered opinion can be only through visiting the party before it which the Court concludes with reference to the facts of a case, has taken an indefeasible stance in the litigation, with exemplary costs. On the facts of the instant case and for reasons set out earlier in this judgment, in the instant case it is the respondent- RSGSML. 9. Consequently, I would allow this petition. On the facts of the instant case and for reasons set out earlier in this judgment, in the instant case it is the respondent- RSGSML. 9. Consequently, I would allow this petition. Respondent-RSGSML is directed to pay the petitioner due gratuity and leave encashment amount with interest @ 8 per cent p.a. from the due date to the date of payment. I would also visit the respondent- RSGSML with cost of Rs. 50,000/- for its complete insensitivity, illegality and arbitrariness in denying the petitioner his gratuity and leave encashment for over two years following his superannuation without any just cause. From the said costs, an amount of Rs. 25,000 be paid to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and the remaining Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur. The said costs be paid within a period of 90 days failing which except for an interim order in a DB Special Appeal (Writ) as may be filed, the respondents shall be liable to be held in contempt. 10. The petition stands allowed accordingly.