JUDGMENT 1. - By invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : (i) for quashing the decision dated 14.9.95 conveyed to the petitioner on 12.12.95 passed by respondent No. 1 and direct the respondents to pay the petitioner cash payment of unutilised Privilege Leave of 180 days, gratuity, commutation of pension, remaining amount of three months notice pay after fixing up the petitioner's salary on the post of Dy. Director, arrear of Dy. Director's pay for 19.8.91 and arrear of pension with interest on all the aforesaid @ 24% per annum. (ii) Directing the respondents to further pay the petitioner compensation for being unnecessarily harassed and for not complying with the Hon'ble Courts orders dated 14.8.92 and 17.10.94. 2. As per facts mentioned in the writ petition, while the petitioner was working on the post of Lecturer; Agriculture Extension Training Centre, Durgapura which is a post equivalent to the post of Assistant Director under the Agriculture Service Rules, he was served with a copy of the order dated 16.8.91 by which he was compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereby referred as the Rules 1951). A copy of this order has been filed as Annex. 1 with the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 28.12.92. Against this order the petitioner filed writ petition before this court which was decided on 2S L93; Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal as well as this court the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition No. 14630-31 of 1995 which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for final decision, since 16.8.91. Till date the petitioner has not been given the post retiral benefits and he is facing great hardships that is why he has been constrained to file the present writ petition. The pension of the petitioner has also not been fixed, till date and he is being given only provisional pension. He has not been paid the gratuity, commutation of pension and balance amount till date. The pension of the petitioner has also not been fixed, till date and he is being given only provisional pension. He has not been paid the gratuity, commutation of pension and balance amount till date. No chargesheet has ever been issued to the petitioner during his entire service career and even till date no chargesheet either under rule 17 or 16 has been issued to him nor any punishment order has ever been passed against the petitioner. Despite of all these facts, the respondents are not paying the petitioner any pensionary benefits and for one reason or the other the petitioner is facing problem in getting his dues. The petitioner had been directed to be promoted to the post of Dy. Director by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal order in his earlier appeal on 17.5.91. After the aforesaid decision when the respondent No. 3 did not implement the Tribunal's order dated 17.5.91, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5491/91 before this Hon'ble Court for getting the orders of the Tribunal implemented. The writ petition was allowed after hearing both the sides on 14.8.92 and the State Government was directed to implement the order of the tribunal within a period of 3 months with cost of Rs. 500/- imposed on .the respondents. By that time the State Government had filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6750/92 before this Court against the Tribunal's order dated 17.5.91. This writ petition of the State Government was dismissed on 17.10.94 with cost of As. 1000/- imposed on the State Government. The cost awarded by this court has not been paid to the petitioner and the order of the Tribunal giving the petitioner promotion to the post of Dy. Director has not been implemented as yet. Till date the petitioner has not received the salary of the post of Dy. Director and his pension has not been fixed accordingly. A copy of the letter dated 9.11.94 by which request was made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 to get the orders implemented, has been placed on record. When the petitioner joined as Lecturer Agriculture Extension Training Centre, Durgapura he was served with the copy of the order 16.8.91 on 19.8.91. Copy of joining report of the petitioner as Lecturer dated 19.8.91 has also been placed on record. When the petitioner joined as Lecturer Agriculture Extension Training Centre, Durgapura he was served with the copy of the order 16.8.91 on 19.8.91. Copy of joining report of the petitioner as Lecturer dated 19.8.91 has also been placed on record. The petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 1.10.92 that he will not get salary of 19.8.91. The petitioner has to his credit 180 days unutilised privilege leave. As per rule 91B of the Rajasthan Service Rules the petitioner is entitled to receive cash payment of unutilised privilege leave of maximum upto 240 days. Hence in all the petitioner is entitled to receive As. 39,360/- as cash payment of unutilised PLs for 180 days. When the petitioner demanded this amount from the respondent vide its letter dated 11.8.95, he was informed that since he had retired under rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules in view of the letter No. F 1(49) FO/Gr. 2/82 dated 14.9.95 issued by respondent No. 1, he was not entitled to receive unutilised privilege leave. This letter date 14.9.95 has been annexed with the writ petition as Annex. 7. The petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition has given details of amount due against the respondents. The petitioner had also taken up his case before the Directorate, Pension and Pensionary Welfare Department where a Pension court has been formed. However vide decision dated 17.11.92 conveyed to the ,petitioner on 12.12.92 the matter has been referred to - the Agriculture Department Directorate for decision. A copy of the decision dated 17.11.95 conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.12.95 has also been placed on record as Annex. 8. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the pension case of the petitioner has been finally decided and he has been authorised on 8.4.96 to get full pension, and commutation of pension and gratuity has also been authorised in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on 18.8.91 and therefore, he is eligible to get pension from the date of 19.8.91 vide P.P.O., G.P.O. and C.P.O. dated 8.4.96 prior to it, the petitioner was authorised to get provisional pension vide order dated 23.11.95. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on 18.8.91 and therefore, he is eligible to get pension from the date of 19.8.91 vide P.P.O., G.P.O. and C.P.O. dated 8.4.96 prior to it, the petitioner was authorised to get provisional pension vide order dated 23.11.95. After decision of the Pension Adalat, the Sanctioning Authority has issued a certificate dated 8.2.96 in which It was mentioned that the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner and as such after receiving the certificate, the case pertaining to post retiral benefits to the petitioner was finalised on 8.4.96. So far as benefits of cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave on the date of retirement is concerned it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been retired under Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules and hence, the decision of the Gover .rnent in accordance to Rule 91 B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of un-utilised. privilege leave. Gratuity has been authorised by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, vide.G.P.O. No. 801195 AJ(R) dated 8.4.96 and the claim of arrears of pension as mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition is not correct. The case of post retiral benefits has been finalised by the respondents and the petitioner is not entitled to receive the cash payment of his unutilised privilege leave. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as reply to the writ petition. 5. According to Rule 91(B) of the Rajasthan Service Rules a Government servant on retirement from service on superannuation, invalid (sic), compensation or retirement pension under rule 244(1), shall be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of untilised privilege leave not exceeding 240 days at his credit at the time of retirement. The cash payment of leave salary admissible under sub-rule (1) above shall be paid on retirement in one lump sum as one time settlement. 6. The cash payment of leave salary admissible under sub-rule (1) above shall be paid on retirement in one lump sum as one time settlement. 6. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 244 reads as under : "The Appointing Authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Government servant, by giving him at least three month's previous notice in writing, from service on the date on which he completed 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter. Provided that such Government servant may be retired from service forthwith, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The Government may publish the order of such retirement in Rajasthan Rajpatra, and the Government servant shall be deemed to have retired on such publication if he has not been served with the retirement order earlier. 7. A perusal of the above Rule reveals that appointing authority shall have the absolute right to retire any Government servant in public interest by giving him at least three months previous notice in writing from service on the date on which he completed 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter. Compulsory retirement under this Rule does not attract the provisions of clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution because such retirement is not conceived as a penalty as the account of this reason, there can be no discrimination between the employee who retires under the provisions of Rule 244(1) and to that of employee who compulsorily retires under Rule 244(2) of the Service Rules. Therefore, I am of the considered view that sub-rule 1 of Rule 91 B of the Service Rules should be read not only with reference to Rule 244(1) but also with reference to Rule 244(2) of the Service Rules and the employees who are compulsorily retired under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules should be given similar treatment as has been given to other retired employees and compulsorily retired employees are also entitled to cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave on the date of retirement at par with that of employees who retire under the provisions of Rule 244(1). 8. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and while quashing the order dated 14.9.95 (Annex. 7) passed by respondent No. 1, I direct the respondents to pay the petitioner cash payment of un-utilised privilege leave of 180 days in accordance with Rule 91 B of the Service Rules. Costs made easy.Writ Petition. *******