JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk Grade III on 19.9.1964 in the office of the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Mirzapur, District Mirzapur (respondent No. 2). Me retired from service on 31.12.2000 at the age of 58 years. It is alleged that in pursuance of a letter of Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Mirzapur, District Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) dated 29.12.2000 the petitioner handed over charge of his office on 31.12.2000 to the concerning person, but despite several representations his monthly pension and other retiral benefits have not been paid.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after retirement the petitioner is entitled to monthly pension and other retiral benefits under the U.P. Zila Parishad Employees Retirement Benefits (Vth Amendment) Rules, 1981 but the same are not being paid to him.
3. Retiral benefits are granted to a retired employee to enable him/her to subsist and non-payment of the same is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has taken Rs. 2,51,600/- from Zila Panchayat Office, Mirzapur on 9.12.1996 but he has not deposited the same in the account of Zila Panchayat and has given a wrong statement that he has deposited the amount for which no receipt has been given to him. The petitioner has denied the allegation and has submitted that he was working on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. The duty of the petitioner was to prepare receipts of the deposits made in the office of Zila Panchayat, Mirzapur and to get signed by the Additional Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Mirzapur, hence it is wrong to state that the petitioner embezzled any amount of Rs. 2,51,600/- on 9.12.1996. As a matter of fact the aforesaid amount was deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Mirzapur on 9.12.1996 with one Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey who was deputed at the cash counter of the Bank. Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey took the entire amount of Rs. 2,51,600/- from the petitioner and asked him to wait for some time so that a receipt may be prepared. Thereafter it is alleged that the said Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey absconded from duty with the amount of Rs. 2,51,600/- deposited by the petitioner. The Bank lodged an F.I.R. against the aforesaid Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey on 9.12.1996 with P.S. Katra Kotwali as Case Crime No. 632/96 under Section 409 I.P.C. after conducting a preliminary enquiry against him. This fact was also reported to the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2) who wrote a letter to the Inspector, Kotwali for lodging an F.I.R. against Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey. The trial against Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey is stated to be pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
4. Subsequently the police arrested Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey who moved a bail application wherein he accepted to have received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,51,600/- from the petitioner. It also appears from the record that there is no allegation against the petitioner and no enquiry is pending against him. On the basis of the aforesaid admitted fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that denial of payment by the petitioner is mala fide.
5. I have perused the record of the case and in view of the admitted fact that Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey had received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,51.600/- from the petitioner for depositing the same in the Bank and that since Sri Dinesh Chand Pandey had ran away with the amount the petitioner cannot be blamed for having embezzled the amount. The petitioner has no other source of livelihood as he has already retired from service and non-payment of his retiral dues is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. In view of the fact that neither any enquiry proceedings nor any disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner, he is entitled to all retiral benefits including pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. with interest.
7. In the facts and circumstances stated above, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay all the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner and shall continue to pay the pension etc. of the petitioner month to month as and when the same falls due.
8. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.9.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. No order as to costs.