ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for the respondents to release her family pension from the date it became due, i.e. from February 2013, so also the due amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits, alongwith interest thereon. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner served under respondent department on the post of Boring Operator, and he retired from the aforesaid post on 29.02.2008. After his retirement the respondents granted him pension vide PPO No.873641 dated 29.10.2009. According to pension payment order, he drew his pension through his bank account at the state bank of India branch at Kamla Nehru Nagar Jodhpur. 3. The husband of petitioner passed away on 19.01.2013, whereafter the petitioner became entitled for getting family pension from the respondents and in this regard she informed the bank about the fact of death of her husband. After the receipt of information given by the petitioner the bank authority stopped the pension of the husband, but did not release the family pension to the petitioner for which she was entitled being the wife of the deceased government servant/pensioner. 4. The petitioner sent a registered notice dated 10.10.2013 through her counsel, to the bank. The bank vide their reply dated 17.10.2013 informed the petitioner that as per the instructions contained in the PPO, she is not entitled for family pension. The bank further explained that under the column of family pension, it was clearly mentioned that it was "Not Admissible" hence, they expressed their inability to release the family pension to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner sent notices to the respondents through her counsel and urged them to revise the PPO and take such necessary step so that the family pension is paid to her at the earliest. She also sent a representation to the Chief Minister. However, since no positive outcome was forthcoming, therefore, she preferred the instant writ petition. 6. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition stating that upon departmental investigation by the competent authority for the period 01/1999 to 09/2002, it was found that there was excess consumption of diesel during the said period and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,70,473/- was found to be recoverable from the petitioner’s husband. 6. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition stating that upon departmental investigation by the competent authority for the period 01/1999 to 09/2002, it was found that there was excess consumption of diesel during the said period and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,70,473/- was found to be recoverable from the petitioner’s husband. A notice was issued to him in this regard, however, he failed to give any satisfactory reply nor he deposited the said amount. Accordingly, the provisional Pension Payment Order No. 873641 dated 29.10.2009 was prepared and sent to Pension Department and the petitioner’s husband withdrew pension during his life time. It is further submitted in the reply that the representation of the petitioner sent to the Chief Minister was forwarded to the Department. After the receipt of said letter, the respondents asked the petitioner to submit the relevant documents and put signatures for grant of pension, upon which the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents on 10.10.2014 and thereafter, the fixation of pay of husband of petitioner was also done through Accounts officer and after undertaking all the formalities, matter was sent to the Pension Department on 20.10.2014. The Pension department has allowed the pension to the petitioner and PPO has been No. 873641R has been prepared vide order dated 16.12.2014. It is, thus, submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the revised PPO has been prepared and has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the relief prayed for has already been granted. 7. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that upon departmental investigation by the competent authority, it was found that there was excess consumption of dies and a notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner in this regard, however, he failed to give any satisfactory reply nor did he deposit the said amount despite assurance given by him, therefore, the Assistant Engineer, Drilling Division sent a show cause notice to the petitioner’s husband on 29.07.2005. 8. The rejoinder to the reply has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner. It is averred in the rejoinder that the respondent department can not recover any amount whatsoever from the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased government employee. 8. The rejoinder to the reply has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner. It is averred in the rejoinder that the respondent department can not recover any amount whatsoever from the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased government employee. If the respondents had found that there was any excess consumption of diesel by the husband of the petitioner then they should have recovered the amount from him. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner was in service of the respondents till February 2008 but during the long period from 2002 to 2008 no efforts were made by the respondents department to recover the amount from his salary. He was allowed to retire in February 2008 and was alive upto 19.01.2013, even during this period of five years after retirement no action was initiated by the respondents and surprisingly, respondents have recovered the amount from the gratuity amount, which was due and payable to the husband of the petitioner at the time of his retirement in February 2008. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is most unjustified, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed on the guidelines issued by State Government on 16.03.1998 by a circular stating inter alia to drop the enquiry, pending against any employee in the event of his/her death. 9. It was further averred in the rejoinder that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents released the arrears of family pension and gratuity to the petitioner which was credited to the bank account of the petitioner on 28.05.2015, but on 01.06.2015 the bank debited the the bank account of the petitioner by Rs.1,70,478/-. The petitioner on enquiry was told that her account was debited in terms of the order passed by the Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Ajmer dated 08.12.2014. It was further contended that the respondents released the family pension to the petitioner after a prolonged delay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the family pension and gratuity amount. 10. While addressing the court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without any rhyme or reason withheld an amount of Rs. It was further contended that the respondents released the family pension to the petitioner after a prolonged delay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the family pension and gratuity amount. 10. While addressing the court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without any rhyme or reason withheld an amount of Rs. Rs.3,07,131/- from the gratuity of the petitioner’s husband, which was payable to him on his superannuation and the same has actually been paid in May 2015 after a period of more than 7 years without paying any amount of interest. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents were not entitled to recover any amount even from the deceased Government employee, i.e. the husband of the petitioner, let alone his legal heirs. It is submitted that even though the respondents under a puported internal investigation issued a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding excess consumption of diesel amounting to Rs.170,478/- and further issued a notice dated 29.07.2005, but thereafter they never reached to a conclusion that as to who was responsible for excess consumption of diesel and to whom such liability can be fastened and under what provisions. The respondents kept silence for years together when the petitioner was in service and even thereafter till his death in the year 2013 and thus, their action to recover the said amount from the legal heir of the deceased Government employee is absolutly illegal, arbitary and against the principles of natural justice. That it is admitted fact that the respondents did not make any departmental enquiry for the allegation leveled against the husband of the petitioner during his life time and now after the death of the husband who was the employee of the respondent they can not pass any order for recovery at this stage nor recover any amount by the order dated 08.12.2014, thus, the order dated 08.12.2014 is bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there was no illegality in withholding the amount, as an investigation conducted by the competent authority had revealed excess consumption of diesel during the period 1999–2002, and a sum of Rs. 1,70,478/- was found recoverable. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there was no illegality in withholding the amount, as an investigation conducted by the competent authority had revealed excess consumption of diesel during the period 1999–2002, and a sum of Rs. 1,70,478/- was found recoverable. It was argued that a notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner during his service tenure, but he did not furnish any satisfactory explanation. The respondents, therefore, acted within their authority by adjusting the recoverable amount from the gratuity. It was further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the revised PPO for family pension had already been issued in favour of the petitioner and the arrears released, thus, the writ petition had been rendered infructuous to that extent. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband retired on 29.02.2008 and remained alive till 19.01.2013. It is further undisputed that during his entire remaining service period after 2002 and even in the five years after retirement, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondents to conclude any departmental proceedings or to effect recovery from his salary, pension, or other retiral dues. It is also admitted that no regular departmental enquiry was ever initiated or concluded against the petitioner’s husband in accordance with law. 15. The respondents seek to justify the recovery solely on the basis of an internal investigation leading to issuance of a show cause notice. However, the law is well settled that a recovery from retiral benefits, including gratuity, can be made only pursuant to a duly concluded disciplinary/departmental proceeding, or where the pensioner’s guilt is established after due opportunity of hearing. A mere preliminary enquiry or show cause notice cannot constitute the basis for such recovery. 16. Even otherwise, the State Government's circular dated 16.03.1998, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly provides that upon the death of an employee, any pending departmental proceedings or enquiries should be dropped, and no recovery is permissible from legal heirs. The stand taken by the respondents is, therefore, in direct conflict with the governmental policy. 16. 16. Even otherwise, the State Government's circular dated 16.03.1998, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly provides that upon the death of an employee, any pending departmental proceedings or enquiries should be dropped, and no recovery is permissible from legal heirs. The stand taken by the respondents is, therefore, in direct conflict with the governmental policy. 16. Equally important is the fact that the respondents have sought to effect recovery after the death of the employee, from his widow, without ever establishing liability against the deceased employee through any lawful process during his lifetime. Such action is patently arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 has categorically held that recovery from employees, particularly Class-III/IV employees or their legal heirs, is impermissible where no misrepresentation or fraud is attributed to them and where recovery would cause undue hardship. The present case clearly falls within the said prohibition. 18. In the present matter, the respondents have themselves admitted that the revised PPO has been issued and family pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer regarding release of family pension stands satisfied. However, the question of illegal recovery and interest on delayed payment remains to be adjudicated. 19. As the recovery of Rs. 1,70,478/- was effected without authority of law, without any concluded enquiry, and contrary to the government circular dated 16.03.1998, the said recovery cannot be sustained. The action is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 20. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in the following terms: (i) The order dated 08.12.2014, issued by the Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Ajmer, directing recovery of Rs. 1,70,478/- from the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The recovery of Rs. 1,70,478/- debited from the petitioner’s bank account on 01.06.2015 is declared illegal, and the respondents are directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of this order. (iii) The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the withheld gratuity amount, family pension and on the illegally recovered sum, calculated from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment. (iv) No order as to costs.