Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3266 (RAJ)

R. K. Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan

2005-12-09

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-At joint consent of the parties, both the writ petitions involving common controversy are heard finally and disposed of at admission stage. 2. R.K. Malhotra joined as Junior Engineer on 24.04.1967 and served Agriculture Department of State Government as Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer upto 20.03.1978. Total period of services rendered by him with State Government was 10 years 10 months and 15 days, and thereafter was absorbed in the services of Agricultural Marketing Board, where he served from 21.03.1978 till he attained age of superannuation on 31.01.2000 and served for 21 years 10 months and 23 days as Superintending/ Additional Chief Engineer. 3. Ratnesh Kumar joined as Junior Engineer on 27.06.1966 and served Agriculture Department of State Government as Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer upto 20.03.1978. Total period of services rendered by him with State Government was 11 years 8 months and 23 days, and, thereafter was absorbed in the services of Agricultural Marketing Board, where he served from 21.03.1978 till he attained age of superannuation on 312.1999 and served for 21 years 9 months and 10 days as Superintending/Addlitional Chief Engineer. 4. After the petitioners retired from service, respondent Agricultural Marketing Board (“the Board”) released their terminal benefits only for the period they rendered services with the Board but as regards services rendered by them with State Government, their retiral benefits have not been paid. Hence these petitions. 5. Counsel for petitioners urged that State Government was requested by respondent Board for grant of financial sanction vide letter dated 24.06.2000 (Annexure-8) and the Department conveyed approval of State Government for their pensionary benefits vide letter dated 15.09.2001 (Annexure-9) and apart from it, financial sanction has also been granted by State Government vide order dated 08.07.2005-xerox copy whereof has been produced in Court. 6. Counsel further urged that as per Rule 158 of Rajasthan Service Rules so also as per Government decision, if Government servant has been transferred to autonomous body and finally absorbed and elects to be governed by the rules of autonomous body which provide for pension, the pension on retirement from autonomous body would become payable to him by that body; however, pensionary liability will be allocated between Government and autonomous body on service share basis. Counsel also urged that once the Government has granted approval, petitioners are entitled for payment of their retiral benefits on their total services rendered either with State Government or Board; but without any justification, their services rendered in the State Government were not computed in arbitrary manner and such inaction of the respondent is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Respondents have filed their separate reply to writ petition. State Government in its reply in Para 2(a) has averred that financial sanction has been granted by Government in exercise of Rule 158(1) of RSR, and the Department was informed vide letter dated 23.05.2003. Respondent Board in its reply has admitted that petitioners were holding pensionable post and are entitled to pensionary benefits; but since, the State Government has not granted approval and financial sanction for retiral benefits for the services rendered in the State Government, as such the Board cannot be held liable to release their pension for their services rendered in the Government. 8. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and perused material on record. Fact of petitioners having held pensionable post so also their entitlement of retiral benefits for the services rendered with State Government or Board, has not been disputed by either of the respondents. Decision of State Government conveyed vide FD Office Memo No. F. 1(7)(ER)/65/dated 09.02.1965 relevant to present controversy in regard to Rule 158 of RSR reads as under:- “(iii) . . . . If the rule of autonomous body provide for pension, the pension on retirement from auonomous body would be payable to them by that body. The pensionary liability will, however, be allocated between Government and the auonomous body on servcie share basis. The Government will liquidate its share on paying the capitalised value of their share of pension to the autonomous body.” 9. Afore quoted decision clearly demonstrates that pension liability will be allocated between Government and autonomous body on service share basis. State Government in Para 2(a) of its reply accepted this fact that petitioners are entitled to pensionary benefits for the period of their service rendered in its Department, for which its approval and financial sanction have also been issued for release of their pensionary benefits. However, reply filed by the Board, is contrary to what has been referred to by State Government in its reply. However, reply filed by the Board, is contrary to what has been referred to by State Government in its reply. Ultimate fact remains that none of respondents have disputed with regard to entitlement of pensionary benefits to petitioners. In my opinion, merely because either of respondents failed to discharge its legal obligation to release pensionary benefits and grant financial sanction, as the case may be, atleast the petitioners cannot be deprived of their legal right conferred of retirement benefits for total period of services which they have rendered under State Government or Board under relevant service rules and I find no justification for withholding retiral benefits of petitioners. 10. State Government has also issued Notification dated 12.06.2001 (Annexure-10) wherein it has been directed that if payment of retirement benefits has been delayed for more than two months, State Government will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay in payment of retirement benefits from the date of their accrual to retired personnel. No justification has come forward for withholding their terminal benefits, in my opinion, petitioners are entitled to interest also. 11. Consequently both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to release full terminals benefits of petitioners based on total period of services rendered with State Government or the Board and make payment whereof alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its accrual till its actual payment after due adjustment of retirement benefits already paid to petitioner concerned. All exercise pursuant to aforesaid direction be made within three months to pay terminal benefits to each of petitioners. No costs.