JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner retired from the service on 31st August, 1996 after rendering 36 years of service. However, his gratuity and pension have been withheld by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there is a letter dated 1.10.97 of the respondent, which is at page 29 & 30 of paper book wherein a certificate from Mr. P.M. Natrajan, General Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer, has been received by the petitioner, inter alia, stating that no departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand counsel for respondent has contended that gratuity has been withheld as on 19.6.84 FIR No. 45/84 was filled by CBI and charge sheet was filed in January 1986, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under Section 120B IPC and Section 420/511 IPC and the same is still pending.
5. The end of justice would be met if the respondent calculate the gratuity and pay the same to the petitioner as the stand of the respondents is that no dues are to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents and the petitioner has not caused any loss to the respondents. However, the same shall be paid to the petitioner on the basis of undertaking as well as surety provided by the petitioner. After the culmination of the criminal proceedings if anything is found against the petitioner in terms of monetary dues, petitioner shall restitute the same to the respondents. Grant of gratuity shall be paid within four weeks.
6. The question of period of suspension and emoluments shall be decided by the respondent after the culmination of the criminal proceedings.
7. Writ petition stands disposed of.
8. Rule is made absolute.