JUDGMENT 1. - The case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as General Teacher in the services of Directorate of Primary & Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner w.e.f. 5.2.1955. After having rendered about 20 years of qualifying service, the request for voluntary retirement from service was made by the petitioner to the Department which was accepted as per the requirements laid down under Section 244(1) of the RSR, 1951 which gives an option to a Govt servant to exercise his option of seeking voluntary retirement by giving at least three months notice to the appointment authority and the date of retirement from service shall be reckoned w.e.f. the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. This option may be withheld by the appointing authority in case of Govt. servant who is (i) under suspension; (ii) in whose case disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been in a court of law. 2. As regards the benefit of 5 years notional qualifying service as mentioned in clause (vi) of Rule 244 RSR this clause shall not be applicable to a Government servant who has retired under sub-rule (2) of this Rule. That is to say that those Govt. servants who are made to compulsorily retire by the department after completion of 25 years of service, only they are entitled to claim notional benefit of 5 years which is not the position in the instant case. The law mandates computing of service for extending benefit of notional qualifying service also to those govt. servants who have opted for voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years of qualifying service which in the instant case as it appears from the documents on record and also the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent has already been extended to the petitioner as per the order of the State Govt. dated 26.9.2002 vide Annexure R/2. 3. dated 26.9.2002 vide Annexure R/2. 3. Vide order dated 27.8.2002, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage had issued show cause notice to the respondents by directing the petitioner to submit a representation in respect of the relief sought for by him to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Raj. who in turn was directed to forward the petitioner's representation to the concerned functionary of the Education Department of the State Govt. with a direction to decide the petitioner's representation after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from the said date. This Court further directed that its only after the representation has been decided by the concerned authority as per the directions given by this Court, this writ petition shall be heard and finally decided by this Court. Accordingly, the matter has come up today for final hearing and the same is now being disposed of finally by this order. 4. During the course of hearing, Mr. Ajay Tyagi, learned counsel representing the petitioner has not disputed the fact that his request for voluntary retirement was accepted as per R.244(1) of RSR by respondent No.4 viz. the District Education Officer Sawai Madhopur Karauli. The typographical error which had occurred in the earlier order dated 14.7.1977 wherein the date of voluntary retirement had been described as 17.1.1976 instead of 17.7.1976 which was rectified lateron as is apparent from the perusal of order dated 26.9.2002 (Annexure-R/2) which has been placed on record today by the learned counsel for the respondent alongwith supporting application seeking permission of the Court for taking additional documents on the record and the supporting document has also been supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent today in court. 5. Due to some inadvertent error and mistake on the part of the respondents in the earlier order Annexure -1 dated 14.7.1977 passed by the District Education Officer Karauli instead of mentioning 17.1.1976 as the date of qualifying service of the petitioner keeping in view by acceding to the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement; it was mentioned as date of resignation of the petitioner from the services of the respondents. This error was subsequently rectified by order dated 23.7.1977 (Annexure-2) by correcting the earlier order. This error was subsequently rectified by order dated 23.7.1977 (Annexure-2) by correcting the earlier order. In the order dated 26.7.1979 (Ann.4), it is explicit that the petitioner who has completed already completed 20 years of qualifying service w.e.f. 17.6.1976 shall be entitled to pensionary and all such consequential benefits as admissible to him in accordance with the rules. 6. The grievance which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing is that there was a delay in compliance of the aforesaid order on the part of the State Govt. for the reason that his request for voluntary retirement was forwarded belatedly by the Govt. vide order dated 3.4.1992 (Annexure-8) which was decided on 22.7.1992 and for which the petitioner has suffered adverse consequences. 7. When the petitioner was undergoing STC training course which he completed on 6.5.1989. Sanction could be obtained by the department after having condoned the period of his absence by construing it as on duty in July 1992, the period spent actually on training was not taken as the period spent on duty for which he has been derived of the pensionary benefits for a period of about four years since the matter was kept in abeyance due to deliberate lapse on the part of respondents from 1989 to 1993. 8. The argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel to the respondent is that since the petitioner has earlier not completed 20 years of qualifying service, his request for compliance of R. 244(1) RSR so as to enable him to exercise his opinion for voluntary retirement which he had no earlier completed as it was falling short of requisite period which could not be extended keeping in view the requirement of Rule 205(a) of RSR which provides, as under: "205. Time spent on training. Time spent on training. - (a) Government may, at its discretion decide in the case of an officer (including a person in training for, but not actually appointed to, Government service) who is selected to undergo a course of training, whether the time spent on training shall count as service qualifying for pension." As stated hereinabove provision was duly complied with by the respondents by acceding to the petitioner's representation dated 24.10.1989 (Ann.7) though belatedly i.i view of long pendency of petitioner's representation which remained undecided till July 1992 and only thereafter the order dated 22.7.1992 (Ann.9) was passed by the State Govt. extending the pensionary and other benefits as admissible to the petitioner on completion of 20 years of qualifying service.From the perusal of the relevant documents placed on the record, it is apparent that thereafter another representation filed by the petitioner on 8.9.2002 was decided by a reasoned order on 26.9.2002 (Ann.R/2) after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the applicability of the relevant rules on the subject. 9. In my considered view no interference is called for as regards passing of the orders by the respondents in compliance with the earlier order dated 22.8.2002 as is apparent and explicit from the perusal of the order dated 26.9.1982 (Ann. R/2). As regards the petitioner's grievance that the matter was purposely kept pending and not decided by the respondents for the period 15.1.1976 to 12.7.1992, since the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing by the respondents though he had not completed the period of qualifying service as on the date when his request for voluntary retirement was considered by the department and also keeping in view the fact that the period spent on STC training had not been earlier included, he could not be extended the benefit for the purpose of qualifying pension and which could be done only after necessary approval and sanction was obtained by the HE the Governor and thereafter the petitioner was extended all the pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules. 10. Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the said provision was inserted in RSR pursuant to the amendment on 16.2.1978 which was made effective on 1.10.1977. 10. Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the said provision was inserted in RSR pursuant to the amendment on 16.2.1978 which was made effective on 1.10.1977. Since request for the voluntary retirement of the petitioner had been accepted on 17.1.1976 i.e. the date prior to 1.10.1977 from which date onwards the amendment had become effective the petitioner can possibly have no grievance at all. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to the notional benefit of 5 years of service, which contention of the petitioner's counsel is obviously erroneous and dehors the rules. 11. As a result of above discusion, I am of the view that the petitioner has no further grievance to agitate as nothing further survives for consideration of this Court as in my view, the grievance having been fully met and the petitioner having already been extended all the benefits as admissible to a Govt. servant seeking voluntary retirement as per Rule 244(1) of the RSR. 12. As a result of above discussion, this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******