Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1348 (RAJ)

A. R. Ghosh v. State Of Rajasthan

2002-08-01

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks direction in the name of respondents to refund the amount Rs. 10,000/- along with the interest and to include the service period from January 1, 1988 to September 30, 1988 in his service period while assessing the pension payable to the petitioner and consequent arrears arising out of the same. The petitioner has also prayed to allow the interest on the amount of gratuity, commuted value of pension and arrears of pension for the period from October 1, 1988 to January 1, 1995, as the same has been paid by a delay of more than six years. 2. The contractual facts depicts that the petitioner ought to have been retired on December 31, 1987 by he was not superannuated on that date and he was allowed to continue in service till September 30, 1988. Since the period of service w.e.f. January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 was not counted for the purpose of pension and the deduction of Rs. 10,000/- was made, the petitioner approached the respondents seeking redressal of his grievance. But no justice was done to him. It appears that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ajmer forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 recommending for regularising the service of the petitioner from of the period of January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 and to decide about payment withheld by the respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that from the amount of gratuity Rs. 10,000/- were withheld without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the service of the period from January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 has not been computed for the purpose of pension payable to the petitioner. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition with the averments that the amount Rs. 10,000/- was rightly withheld by Pension Department as per provisions of the relevant rules and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. I have pondered over rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Mr. Resham Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Narayan Ram v. State of Rqjasthan and Ors. 1995 (3) WLC 856 and Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. Judgment Today 2000 (5) SC 171. 6. 4. I have pondered over rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Mr. Resham Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Narayan Ram v. State of Rqjasthan and Ors. 1995 (3) WLC 856 and Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. Judgment Today 2000 (5) SC 171. 6. This court in Narayan Ram (supra) has indicated that where the petitioner had to retire on a particular date but was not retired, the respondents themselves are at fault for not retiring the petitioner at due time. In the said judgment this court has observed that the rules have to be made just fair and reasonable and the rules regarding payment of pension to retired person cannot be said to be just, fair and reasonable if the retiral benefits are not paid within one month from the date of his retirment. The service record and other papers regarding payment of pension should be completed by the department before 2 months, from the date of attaining the age of superannuation of the incumbent and immediately on the date of retirement he should be paid gratuity and payment of regularised pension should be ensured with the next following month in order to facilitate a dignified living of a retired person, who had served the State of such a long time. 7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) have propounded that in case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. 8. Undeniably, while deducting the amount Rs. 1,00,000/- from the amount of gratuity, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing. Even the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ajmer has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Chief Engineer recommending to regularise the period of service from January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 so that the amount of gratuity which was withheld may be released to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show as to why the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till September 30, 1988 when he ought to have been superannuated on December 31, 1987. There is nothing on record to show as to why the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till September 30, 1988 when he ought to have been superannuated on December 31, 1987. I do not see any fault of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and the respondents are reasonsible for allowing the petitioner to continue till September 30, 1988. 9. In view of the ratio indicated in Narayan Ram v. State of Rqjasthan and Ors. (supra), I have no option but to hold that the petitioner's service for the period of January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 ought to have been counted for the purpose of calculating the pension. The deduction of Rs. 10,000/- from the amount of gratuity without providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was illegal. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to refund the amount Rs. 10,000/-. The respondents are also directed to include the period of service from January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest 12% per annum on the amount as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Service Pension Rules, 1996. The compliance of the order shall be made within 90 days. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******