ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2010, after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that prior to the retirement of the petitioner, a criminal case under Section 7, 13 (1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) was registered against him, wherein, he faced trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.04/2003 and was acquitted vide judgment dated 27.07.2007. Counsel submits that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner dated 14.12.2004, but subsequently, the same was dropped by the respondents vide order dated 18.09.2007. Counsel submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2007 in the criminal case, and the departmental charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was also dropped in the year 2007, much prior to the retirement of petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents are not justified in withholding the rightful claim of the petitioner to get retiral dues. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith, without any further delay. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that a criminal case under Section 7/13 of the Act of 1988 was lodged against the petitioner and that is why, the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him in the year 2004. Counsel submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case by the Special Judge while giving him benefit of doubt, against which the State has preferred a Criminal Appeal before this Court which is lying pending for adjudication. Counsel submits that provisional pension has already been granted to the petitioner and the payment of leave encashment has also been released in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that provisional pension has already been granted to the petitioner and the payment of leave encashment has also been released in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that unless and until the Appeal, against acquittal of the petitioner, is decided by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to get other retiral dues, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. A conjoint reading of Rule 7 and Rule 90(c) of the Rules of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) reveals that if any judicial proceeding is pending against a delinquent employee, the gratuity can be withheld and only provisional pension can be released. 6. This fact is not in dispute that a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 was pending against the petitioner prior to his retirement, but he was acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007. Indisputably, respondent-State has assailed the aforesaid judgment before the Appellate Court by way of filing an appeal and the said appeal is still pending for consideration before the Appellate Court. This fact is also undisputed that after acquittal, the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation. 7. For reading reference Rule 7 and 90 of the Rules of 1996 are reproduced as under: " 7. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of [rupees eight thousand eight hundred fifty per mensem]. (2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Governor. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made inrelation to the Government servant during his service. (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 90 shall be sanctioned: [Provided that in case of Government Servant against whom departmental proceedings have been institutted under rule 17 of the Rajasthan civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of rule 14 of the said rule, the hundred percent final gratuity shall be paid.] (5) Where the Governor decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule, - (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court. Rule 90. Provisional pension and provisional retirement gratuity where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. (1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub rule (4) of Rule 7, the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, on receipt of pension case alongwith sanction of provisional pension from the appointing authority shall authorise the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension: Provided that in cases where pension case could not be prepared finally for one or the other reason the appointing authority shall sanction provisional pension in Form 33 after following procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) of Rule 86 and send the case to the Director, Pension for issue of Provisional Pension Payment Order till the Departmental Enquiry is finalised. (b) The provisional pension shall be authorised by the Director, Pension Department, during the period commencing from the date of retirement upto and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority: [Provided that no recovery shall be made from provisional pension paid under sub-rule (1), where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period] (c) In respect of the Government Servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of the rule 7, the privisional retirement gratuity may be paid as under:- (i) fifty percent amount of gratuity of the Government servant against whom departmental proceedings have been instituted under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1958 or against whom criminal case involving moral turpitude or offence relating to this official duty is pending; and (ii) twenty percent of amount of gratuity to the Government Servant against whom amount of House Building Advance has been set apart for recovery out of retirement gratuity at the time of grant of House Building Advance or against house rent of Government Accommodation is due.] [(2) The provisional retirement gratuity paid under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) (i) shall be adjusted against final retirement gratuity sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of departmental proceedings or Judicial proceedings and if amount paid is in excess of amount payable such excess amount shall be recovered; and (ii) shall be recovered from the Government servant who is removed or dismissed from the service on finalization of departmental proceedings under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 or criminal case involving moral turpitude or offence relating to his official duty.] 8. Upon perusal of the above provisions it is nowhere expressly provided that even after acquittal the retiral benefits shall not be released, if any appeal is filed against the order of acquittal. Meaning thereby, no such bar is imposed in the scheme for not releasing the retiral benefits before the decision of the appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal. Upon perusal of the above provisions it is nowhere expressly provided that even after acquittal the retiral benefits shall not be released, if any appeal is filed against the order of acquittal. Meaning thereby, no such bar is imposed in the scheme for not releasing the retiral benefits before the decision of the appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal. In this connection, this Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu vs. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu reported in AIR 1977 SC 1268 , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para No. 16 observed as under:- "16. So far as the question of appeal to this Court is concerned, it is true that no appeal lay as a matter of right against the judgment in the appeal in the money suit, but, we think that the learned counsel for the respondents is correct in submitting that the question Whether there is a bar of res judicata does not depend on the existence of a right of appeal of the same nature against each of the two decisions but on the question whether the same issue, under the circumstances given in section 11, has been heard and finally decided. That was certainly purported to be done by the High Court in both the appeals before it subject, of course, to the rights of parties to appeal. The mere fact that the defendant- appellant could come up to this Court in appeal as of right by means of a certificate of fitness of the case under the un-amended Article 133(1)(c)in the partition suit, could not take away the finality of the decision so far as the High Court had determined the money suit and no attempt of any sort was made to question the correctness or finality of that decision even by means of an application for Special Leave to appeal." 9. The law is quite settled in this regard that mere pendency of an appeal is no ground to withhold retiral benefits. There are catena of judgments/ orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court which has crystallized the position of law in this regard. 9.1 In Virendra Kumar Singhal Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and Ors. There are catena of judgments/ orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court which has crystallized the position of law in this regard. 9.1 In Virendra Kumar Singhal Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.16994/2016) decided on 25.10.2017, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that, 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. 9.2 In Jagan Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19178/2015) decided on 08.02.2019, it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that pendency of the appeal against the petitioner's acquittal vide judgment dated 17-7-2006 cannot be held to be a pendency of "judicial proceeding" entitling the respondents to withhold petitioner's gratuity, commutation or for that matter any other retiral benefits due following the petitioner's superannuation on 31-8-2008. 9.3 In Prasan Kumar Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8932/2009) decided on 08.07.2015, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur has held that, the fact that the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges levelled against by the competent criminal court, the respondents cannot deny the retiral benefits to the petitioner because for the purpose of releasing retiral benefits there is no bar in the scheme. 9.4 In Goma Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12859 of 2016) decided on 31.01.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that, mere pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Court against the order of acquittal cannot be a ground for depriving the superannuated incumbent of his retiral benefits. 10. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 [State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. 10. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 [State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. JitendraKumar Shrivastava & Anr.] has very specifically observed that in absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government cannot withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity even during pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings. However, in the said case, the Supreme Court has dealt with the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, but the analogy as has been applied by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has direct impact in the present case. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has also discussed the rights of an employee to receive pension and also observed that pension includes gratuity. As per the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that in absence of any specific provision empowering the employer to withhold the pension of an employee, the same cannot be withheld. 11. A look at the provision contained under Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996 clearly indicates that release of gratuity depends upon conclusion of departmental and judicial proceedings. Thus, if a person has been acquitted in judicial proceedings or exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the gratuity amount shall be released. 12. Perusal of the record indicates that a criminal case under Section 7/13 of the Act of 1988 was lodged against the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner was charge-sheeted to face trial before the Criminal Court and because of lodging of the said criminal case against him, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 were initiated against him, but in the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 in Sessions Case No.04/2003. In consequence thereof, the respondents took a decision to drop the charge- sheet against the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2007. Hence, under these circumstances, it is clear that neither the criminal case nor any departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner, at the time of his retirement on 30.04.2010. 13. This Court finds no merit and substance in the arguments of the counsel for the respondent-State that a Criminal Appeal against acquittal of the petitioner has been preferred before this Court and the same is lying pending for adjudication, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral dues. 14. 13. This Court finds no merit and substance in the arguments of the counsel for the respondent-State that a Criminal Appeal against acquittal of the petitioner has been preferred before this Court and the same is lying pending for adjudication, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral dues. 14. Mere filing of an Appeal against the order of acquittal or pendency of Criminal Appeal against the acquittal cannot be a ground to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. 15. Hence, it is clear that, mere filing of a criminal appeal before the Appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal cannot be treated as continuation of criminal trial or criminal proceedings against an individual within the meaning of Rule 7 read with Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, hence, under these circumstances, the embargo contained under Rule 90 is not applicable in such alike matters. 16. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith, without any further delay with interest @9% per annum, in terms of the Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 17. It goes without saying that the respondents would do the needful exercise for compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. The petitioner is directed to submit an undertaking before the respondents with the averment that he would refund all retiral dues to the respondents with interest, in case, the Appeal against his acquittal is allowed by this Court and he is found guilty by the Appellate Court. 19. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.