JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to remit capitalised value of the pensionary benefits amounting to Rs. 45,150/- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred fifty only) with interest to the Jamia Millia Islamia University with further prayer to pay G.P.F. amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only). 2. As per the averments made in writ petition, the petitioner, a renowned Educationist and Sociologist was retired in the year 1995 from the post of Professor from Jamia Millia Islamia University (for short 'J.M.I.U'). The petitioner joined J.M.I.U on December 2, 1969 on the post of Reader (Sociology) on probation basis and was confirm on the said post on December 23, 1971. 3. The petitioner pleaded that he initially joined Rajasthan Education Department on July 29, 1952 as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Darhar High School, Sambhar Lake. During his services of 17 years 3 months and 14 days, the petitioner earned promotions. While the petitioner was in service with the respondents, he was offered the post of Reader (Sociology) in J.M.I.U. The petitioner applied for the same through proper channel and was selected. The petitioner resume the charge of the post of Reader from December 2, 1969, subject to retaining his lien in Education Department, State of Rajasthan. The respondents admitted their liability to pay the pension and other retiral benefits due to the petitioner for the tenure of the services rendered by the petitioner. A letter in this regard dated January 5, 1995 (Ann. A-I) was written to the Registrar, J.M.I.U by the State of Rajasthan. 4. It is further averred that after joining J.M.I.U, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents for payment of capitalised value of pension and gratuity in lieu of his past services with the respondents. The case of the petitioner was also pursued by the J.M.I.U with the respondents, but the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has to approach this Court. 5. The respondents in their return to the writ petition contended that the conditions for the grant of pension and another retiral benefits of a civil service in Government of Rajasthan are governed by the Rajasthan Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Pension Rules') framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India on September 18, 1996. 5. The respondents in their return to the writ petition contended that the conditions for the grant of pension and another retiral benefits of a civil service in Government of Rajasthan are governed by the Rajasthan Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Pension Rules') framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India on September 18, 1996. Prior to the Pensions Rules, the pensions and other retiral benefits were subjected to Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'R.S.R') . Part VIII Chapter XVII of R.S.R relates to pension. The Civil Servant is entitled to get pension only on retirement from service. If a Government servant resigns from service, the pension is not admissible to him in view of Rule 208(a) of R.S.R which provided that since the petitioner resigned from service prior to 1996 hence his case is governed by the provisions of R.S.R . Since the State Government refused to accept the resignation of the petitioner his registration was not with proper permission and the case of the petitioner is not covered under Rule 208(B) of R.S.R. 6. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of writ petition has also been raised by the respondents in respect of non joinder of J.M.I.U which is, according to the respondents, a necessary party. 7. The petitioner submitted counter affidavit in rejoinder reiterating the facts averred in writ petition. 8. I have pondered over the rival submissions. 9. A close scrutiny of the material on record demonstrates that the petitioner had left the services of respondents after taking proper permission from them and the respondents in their reply admitted that the resignation of petitioner was accepted by them on October 24, 1975. To my mind the case the petitioner is covered under Rule 208(b) of R.S.R as the petitioner took up the appointment with J.M.I.U with proper permission of respondents. 10. In so far as the preliminary objection in regard to non impleadment of J.M.I.U is concerned, I am of the view that J.M.I.U is not necessary party as no relief has been asked for against J.M.I.U. 11. 10. In so far as the preliminary objection in regard to non impleadment of J.M.I.U is concerned, I am of the view that J.M.I.U is not necessary party as no relief has been asked for against J.M.I.U. 11. In Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others, 1971 (2) SCC 330 : [1971(1) SLR 175 (SC)], the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that the right of the employee to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no powers to withhold the same. Similarly the said claim is also property under Article 19(l)(t) and it is not served by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying the employee right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the employee under Articles 19(l)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. 12. In State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, (1973) I SCC 120 [1972 SLR 836 (SC)] the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that the pensionable benefits are not merely bounty but property to which they are entitled. 13. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing in behalf of respondents took me to various provisions contained in R.S.R. and made an attempt to justify the action of respondent, but I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions. To my mind the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner. 14. From the document appended with the writ petition Annexure-5 it appears that J.M.I.U, also communicated the Education Secretary, State of Rajasthan the following resolution dated January 11, 1986 arrived by the Executive Council of J.M.I.U : "The J.M.I.U resolved that the preview service of Prof. S.P. Ruhela from 19.7.52 with the Government of Rajasthan till he joined in J.M.I.U w.e.f. 2.12.69 considered contained for purposes of retirement benefit in terms of rule 5.1 of retirement benefits Scheme 1974 of the J.M.I.U provided that the Government of Rajasthan pays capitalised value of pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits in respect of the services of Prof. S.P. Ruhela rendered with them." The J.M.I.U made request to the Education Secretary to remit the capitalised value of pension and gratutity and other retiral benefits in lieu of past services rendered by petitioner with the Government of Rajasthan to the J.M.I.U. 15. S.P. Ruhela rendered with them." The J.M.I.U made request to the Education Secretary to remit the capitalised value of pension and gratutity and other retiral benefits in lieu of past services rendered by petitioner with the Government of Rajasthan to the J.M.I.U. 15. It appears from the order dated October 24, 1975 (Annexure-R-10) that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted on October 24, 1975 w.e.f. December 2, 1969 and the information in this regard was communicated to J.M.I.U vide letter dated April 29, 1987 (Annexure-R-11). 16. The Registrar, JMIU vide letter dated May 23, 2001 addressed to Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur wrote as under : "On examining the records available in this University, it was observed that Dr. Rohella on his permanent absorption in this University had, in fact, rendered his 'technical resignation' from his service to Govt. of Rajasthan. Thus, the fact as stated by Deptt. of Education (Govt. of Rajasthan) for its refusal to pay the capitalized value of Dr. Rohella's pension and gratuity is not correct and it is liable to pay the same to its University in terms of the provisions as contained in the Govt. of India (Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare) O.M. No. 28(1)/84-P, & P.W./Vol. 11 dated 7.2.86, 17.6.86, 30.10.86 and 20.3.86 and other orders related to the subject as issued from Govt. of India from time to time. Thus, Prof. Rohella's case is fully covered under the Govt. of India orders and he is eligible for counting his past services in Jamia. As the matter regarding counting of his past services has already been delayed an he has been put to suffer from financial hardship due to non-finalization of his pensionary benefits on account of his past services rendered under your Government. I request you kindly to look into the matter and resolve the same at the earliest." 17. The respondent Chief Secretary did not choose to reply the said letter. In my considered opinion, denying the petitioner's right to receive pension and G.P.F affects his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. 18. For the reasons above mentioned, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The respondents are directed to remit the capitalised value of pensionary benefits amounting to Rs. 45,150- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred fifty only) and the G.P.F amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only). 18. For the reasons above mentioned, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The respondents are directed to remit the capitalised value of pensionary benefits amounting to Rs. 45,150- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred fifty only) and the G.P.F amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only). The petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount became due till the actual payment is made. The respondents shall ensure the compliance of this order within sixty days from today. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******