ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10th April, 2003, as contained in Memo No. PO/Tapin/03/127-33, whereby and where under departmental proceeding has been initiated.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that for same set of facts, charges and on the basis of same evidence, earlier a proceeding was initiated by the respondents on 9th September, 1988 in which the petitioner was exonerated by the Labour Court in Reference No. 94 of 1982, disposed of by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2.
3. The departmental proceeding as was initiated against the petitioner was stayed by the Court. During the Pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired on 31st May, 2005.
4. Learned Counsel for the Central Coalfields Ltd. was allowed (sic) to obtain instructions whether the proceeding initiated against the petitioner can continue after his retirement and, if so, to bring on record the provisions of law under which such proceeding may continue.
5. Earlier a counter affidavit was filed wherein while the respondents have not disputed that for same charge earlier, a proceeding was initiated, stated that another allegation has been received indulging that the petitioner is an imposter. This was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner by saying that the issue whether the petitioner was imposter or not, was the charge in the earlier proceeding, which now stands determined by the Labour Court in the Reference Case, as referred above.
6. Similar case fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Somaru Ram v. Central Coalfields Ltd., WP (S) No. 4514 of 2002 : 2003 (1) JCR 335 (Jhr). In the said case, while Somaru Ram preferred the writ petition for payment of retiral benefits, the respondents took plea that the said Somaru Ram impersonated and being the imposter at the time of initial appointment and thereby was not entitled for retiral benefits. The Court having noticed that the question whether the Somaru Ram is impersonated at the time of initial appointment or not, reached finality in view of the Award dated 30th August, 1985 passed in Reference Case No. 94 of 1982, held that it was not open to the authorities to raise same dispute for the purpose of grant of retirement benefit and allowed the writ petition vide order dated 28th of November, 2002.
7. In the present case, as it appears that the matter has already been determined by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 94 of 1982, it was not open for the authorities to start another proceeding for the same set of charges.
8. In any case, the petitioner having retired from service on 31st May, 2005, in absence of any rule/guidelines, it is not open to the respondents to proceed with such proceeding. They are, accordingly, directed to pay the petitioner the admitted retiral benefits and other dues to which he is entitled within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without raising the question whether the petitioner impersonated or not.
9. If the admitted dues are not paid within three months, as indicated above, the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 5% from the date of retirement.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.