Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1832 (RAJ)

Swaroop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-19

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed pension. 2. As per facts averred in the writ petition the petitioner served in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division II Bari District Dholpur. The petitioner was initially appointed on April 1, 1962 on the post of Chowkidar, subsequently he was promoted on the post of Mate. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the service on August 11, 1987. Although the petitioner opted for pension but due to mistake of the Director, Department of State Insurance & Provident Fund Rajasthan Jaipur only the amount of CPF was paid to the petitioner instead of paying the pension. 3. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the pension case of petitioner was prepared and sent to Director, Department of Pension who did not find T.E. and the option for pension was not approved, therefore, only the amount of CPF was paid to the petitioner on July 22, 1991. The respondents have also raised the plea about the delay in filing the writ petition. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions. 5. Prior to insertion of Rule 22A by way of amendment in the Rajasthan 'Public Works Department (B&R) including Gardens Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964 (for short 1964 Rules') there was no provision for grant of pensionary benefits to employees who retired as work charged employees. The amendment was made vide notification dated September 17, 1980. It was provided by Rule 22A that a work charged employee having been or on being declared permanent on completion of 10 years service shall have the options to elect either to continue to contribute towards contributory provident fund or to opt for pensionary benefits. Sub-clause (iv) of the said rule provided that the option shall have to be exercised in writing within a period of six months from the date the amended rule came into force. Vide notification dated December 11, 1989 sub-rule (6) was added in Rule 22A, according to which widows of the work charged employees were also given the liberty to exercise such option. 6. As already noticed work charged employee on being declared permanent on completion of 10 years service is entitled to opt for pension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22A. Vide notification dated December 11, 1989 sub-rule (6) was added in Rule 22A, according to which widows of the work charged employees were also given the liberty to exercise such option. 6. As already noticed work charged employee on being declared permanent on completion of 10 years service is entitled to opt for pension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22A. In view of this sub-rule Swaroop Singh was entitled to opt for pension on September 17, 1980 (the date of notification when Rule 22A was inserted in 1964 Rules). But unfortunately the option opted by the petitioner was not approved by the respondents, inspite of the fact that according to sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A of 1964 Rules the Administrative Authority has discretion to give the benefits of pension in lieu of CPF benefits. Sub-rule (6) was inserted vide amendment dated December 11, 1989 and it was made effective from September 1, 1982 but no limit for exercising the option by the employees was fixed. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to opt for pension and his prayer for pensionary benefits can not be denied only on the ground that the option was not approved. The respondents cannot take shelter of their fault for denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that the option was not approved, particularly when according to sub-rule (6) the right of option has been extended even to widow of work charged employees without prescribing for the limitation. 8. For the reasons aforementioned I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to accord pension to the petitioner as per the relevant rules. After adjusting the amount of CPF the arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. In the peculiar facts and 5 circumstances of the case, the respondents shall not charge interest on the amount of CPF while making adjustment, so also the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of pension. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******