JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, is directed against the order (Annex-C) dated 20th September, 1982. passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' allowing the appeal filed by Pooran Chand Sharma, respondent No. 1 against the order dated 14th May, 1981. passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Education Department. The Tribunal, by its aforesaid order, has quashed the said order dated 14th May, 1981 and has directed the petitioner to condone interruptions in the service of respondent No. 1 from 6th February, 1955 to 14th July, 1955 and from 14th May. 1958, to 12th July, 1959 under Rule 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and allow him pensionary benefit treating his service as qualifying for such benefits with effect from 26th March, 1937 as per rules, 2. The Respondent No. 1 joined Government Service as Lower Division Clerk on 26th March. 1937. On 18th March 1955 he submitted an application to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, wherein he stated that about 21/2 years back he had suffered heart attack and inspite of treatment by various doctors. Vaids, and Hakims he has not been cured. In the said letter respondent no. 1 stated that he had made a number of representations for transfer to Alwar, but the said request has not been accepted. and, therefore, he requested that he may be retired from service and permission may be accorded for his retirement. The said loiter of respondent No. 1 was treated as a letter of resignation and by order dated 2nd May, 1955 the resignation of the respondent No. 1 was accepted with effect from 6th February, 1955 and the condition of notice prior to resignation was waived. Thereafter, the wife of respondent No. 1 moved an application to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan stating that respondent No. 1 had resigned from service in a disturbed state of mind after protracted illness and that he may be allowed to withdraw the resignation and if this was not possible, pension should be sanctioned from the date the resignation was accepted. Thereafter, by order dated 14th July, 1955. the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on purely temporary basis. The petitioner continued to work on the post of Lower Division Clerk till 4th May. Thereafter, by order dated 14th July, 1955. the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on purely temporary basis. The petitioner continued to work on the post of Lower Division Clerk till 4th May. 1958 when his services were terminated after serving one month's notice. Respondent No. I was again appointed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 13th July, 1959 and he continued in service as such till 30th June. 1967 when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the petitioner submitted application for condonation of the break in the service for the period from 6th February, 195D to 14th July, 1955 and from 4th May, 1958 to 12th July, 1959 so that he may be entitled to receive pension and other retirement benefits under the Rules. By Order dated 14th May, 1981 the said request of respondent No. 1 was rejected and he was informed that break in service could not be condoned and his services prior to his resignation could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and gratuity. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14th May, 1981, respondent No. I filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The said appeal was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered by respondent no. 1 prior to the date from which his resignation was accepted could not be taken into consideration for giving pension and other benefits. 3. The Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent No. I and gave the direction referred to above on the view that it was an extremely hard case in which the Government servant was being denied the pension and other benefits even after rendering 34 years of service and that this was despite the fact that Government had all along been aopting a very benevolent attitude towards respondent No. 1 by offering him re-appointments on the post of Lower Division Clerk even when he was age barred and could not have been appointed as such under the rules. The Tribunal was also of the view that there is a clear provision for condoning interruption in the service of a Government servant under Rule 212 of the Rules and note (2) to the said rule and that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no reason as to why the interruptions in the service of respondent no. 1 be not condoned so as to make him eligible for drawing pension & gratuity as per rules. The Tribunal has also observed that this is all the mere necessary in a Welfare State which is every now and then liberalising the provisions relating to pension and gratuity for the sake of its employees. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the State has filed this writ petition. 4. The writ petition has been contested by respondent No. 1. 5. I have heard Shri Ashok Parihar, Dy. Government Advocate in support of the writ petition and Shri Goswami the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. In my view the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to condoning the interruptions in the service of respondent No. 1 from 6th February, 1955 to 14th July, 1955 and 14th May, 1958 to 12th July, 1959 under Rule 212 of the Rules and to allow him the benefits of pension and gratuity is patently a just order and it would not be proper exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the said order by issuing a writ of certiorari. Moreover, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in giving the directions mentioned above in as much as Rule 212 of the Rules empowers the Government to condone interruption in the service of a Government servant upon such conditions as it may think fit. In cases of resignation from service note 2 appended below rule 212 provides that condonation of interruption are not to be allowed unless there are some good reasons for doing so, that is, if it can be shown that the Government servant had good reasons for resigning in the first instance or if he was compelled by reasons beyond his control (e. g. through illness etc.). Rule 212 read with note 2 thus permits condonation of interruption in service in cases where a Government servant has resigned his appointment, if it is found that he was compelled to do so by reasons beyond his control e. g. illness, and in that event the past qualifying service prior to the resignation can be permitted to be counted for pension. In the present case respondent No. I had sought voluntary retirement in his letter dated 14th March, 1955 on the ground of prolonged illness and the said request was treated as resignation and it was accepted. The said request for retirement which was treated as resignation was made by respondent No.l on account of circumstances beyond his control, namely the protracted illness on account of heart ailment and therefore, the interruption in service of the petitioner (sic respondent No. 1) arising on account of the said resignation could be condoned under Rule 212 read with note 2 of the Rules. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal felt that this is a fit case in which the interruption in service of respondent No. I should be condoned in order to make him eligible for drawing the pension and gratuity as per rules. 1 find no reason to disagree with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this court shall stand vacated. Respondent has been denied the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal for the past four years. The petitioner is directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner (sic respondent No. 1) within a period of two months and to pay him the pension and other benefits payable to him within a period of one month thereafter. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this writ petition.Petition dismissed. *******