Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1044 (RAJ)

Basant Kumar Badola v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-22

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The Deputy Secretary to Government passed the order dated May 6, 1961, which reads thus: "In his representation dated the 28th December, 1956 addressed to the Chief Minister, Rajasthan, Shri Basant Kumar, Ex-Assistant Deodhi Officer, Former Dholpur State represented to Government that he was appointed as Assistant to Deodhi Officer in the Dholpur State on Rs. 60/- p.m. with effect from 2.11.47 and later on as a result of merger of Dholpur State in the Matsya Union he was declared surplus from 12.12.48. Since then neither his services had been terminated by the Government nor he had been given any gratuity etc. He, therefore, requested that he may be absorbed in Rajasthan Government service. His case was examined with reference to the Matsya Government Notification No. 71 dated the 30th August, 1948 regarding programme of integration and subsequent instructions issued by the erstwhile Matsya Government in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification. A perusal of paragraph 5(d) of the Matsya Government's Instructions reveals that surplus permanent employees of less than three years service were to be retrenched. Since Shri Basant Kumar had put in less than two years service and could not be absorbed on any other post, he was to be retired by treating his case as retrenchment on compensation pension on abolition of the post. Governor is, therefore, pleased to order that Shri Basant Kumar may be granted whatever leave due to him with effect from 25.6.1949 viz. the date on which the list of surplus staff was communicated to the Collector and District Magistrate, Dholpur and he may be treated as retired after the expiry of the said leave, under rule 202(ii) of the Matsya Civil Service Regulations. Whatever gratuity, if due under the Matsya Civil Services Regulations (for the Dholpur C.S.R. subject to the option, if any given by him) may also be paid to him on verification of his services by the Accountant General." 2. Vide letter dated September 17, 1960 the Collector, Bharatpur was requested by the Dy. Secretary to the Government that pension/gratuity papers of petitioner Basant Kumar be prepared and sent to Accountant General, Rajasthan Jaipur at an early date to enable him to take further necessary action in the matter. The copy of the order dated May 6, 1961 was also forwarded to Collector, Bharatpur with the reference of letter dated September 17, 1960. 3. Secretary to the Government that pension/gratuity papers of petitioner Basant Kumar be prepared and sent to Accountant General, Rajasthan Jaipur at an early date to enable him to take further necessary action in the matter. The copy of the order dated May 6, 1961 was also forwarded to Collector, Bharatpur with the reference of letter dated September 17, 1960. 3. It appears from the perusal of the record that the petitioner had regularly submitted representations and till October 10, 1990 the matter of the petitioner was considered at the various levels. On December 27, 1990, the petitioner approached the Chief Minister and thereafter on January 28,1991 the notice for demand of justice was served upon Secretary to the Government, Collector Dholpur and Collector, Bharatpur, but no justice was done to the petitioner and the petitioner was dragged to this court. 4. In the instant writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and to give all the post-retiral benefits including pension, gratuity etc. with interest within a specified period. 5. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has died on December 13, 2000 and his legal representatives are brought on record. 6. On behalf of the respondents preliminary objection has been raised about the delay in filing writ petition. It was also canvassed that the petitioner approached the Tribunal as back as in the year 1980 and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated May 1, 1980 and that order has attained finality, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. After having reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record, I do not find any delay in filing the writ petition. Even before the Tribunal the petitioner had sought the relief about absorption and no relief about the retiral benefits was prayed for, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal does not come in the way of the petitioner and it is difficult to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of respondents. 8. The respondents are duty bound to implement the order dated May 6, 1961 in accordance with the law applicable to the petitioner. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. 8. The respondents are duty bound to implement the order dated May 6, 1961 in accordance with the law applicable to the petitioner. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner in persuant to the order dated May 6, 1961 within 90 days. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% as well as the cost of the writ petition; which is quantified to Rs. 2,000/-.Petition Allowed With Costs. *******