Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 5 (RAJ)

Gulab Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-03

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment 1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that no interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant challenged the order dated. 110.2002 whereby the respondent held that the appellant was not entitled to pension. It is not in dispute that the appellant was initially appointed in the Judicial Department in the year 1951. In the year 1956 he was transferred to the Ayurved Department as Accounts clerk. By order dated 18.1974 he was relieved for joining the parental department. He did not comply with the order dated 18.1974 by joining the parental department. His date of birth being 4.1933, he would have superannuated on 30th April, 1991. The appellant having willfully remained absent, abandoned the job, as provided under Rule 86(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. However, after 17 years, when the date of superannuation (30.4.1991) had become irrelevant, five day before i.e. on 25th April, 1991 the first respondent, issued a order directing the second respondent to reinstate him on the post of Junior Accountant. A further direction was given to send a proposal to the State Government to treat his period of absence as the period of leave without pay, so that appropriate sanction may be obtained from the Department of Finance. The appellant reported on duty vide Annexure-2 dated 27th April, 1991. He was given posting in the office of District Ayurved Officer, Banswara. On 1st May, 1991 he joined on the post of Junior Accountant at Banswara in the office of District Ayurved Officer. On obtaining the service record it reveled that his date of birth being 5th April, 1933, he had already completed the age of 58 years i.e. the age of superannuation on 30th April, 1991, as such, he could not have been allowed to join on 1st May, 1991. Thus, he was not allowed to be in job, by order dated 18.1991. It was found that the appellant deliberately did not disclose his date of birth and mislead the department. After eight years i.e. on 110.1999, he challenged the order Annexure-4 dated 18.1991 by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur. Thus, he was not allowed to be in job, by order dated 18.1991. It was found that the appellant deliberately did not disclose his date of birth and mislead the department. After eight years i.e. on 110.1999, he challenged the order Annexure-4 dated 18.1991 by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur. The appeal was clearly barred by limitation, however, the Tribunal without entering into the issue involved, straightway by a cryptic order directed the respondents State to take appropriate steps with respect to the retiral benefits of the appellant in accordance with law. The relevant part of the order is extracted as follows:- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZA lkexzh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vf /kdj.k dk fu’d"kZ bl izdkj gS:- izR;FkhZ i{k dks funsZ’k fn;s tkrs gSa fd og vihykFkhZ ds lsokfuo`fRr lEca/kh ykHkksa ds lEcU/k esa fu;ekuqlkj dk; Zokgh djsA vihykFkhZ dh lsokvksa ds lEcU/k esa iSaku lEca/kh ykHk tSls Hkh mRiUu gksrs gaS] mlds ckjs eas izR;FkhZ i{k vkxkeh 6 ekg easleqfpr dk;Zokfg djs o vihykFkhZ dks voxr djk;k tkosA mlls vlUrq"V gksus ij og vf/kdj.k ds le{k iqu vk ldsxkA 3. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal the State Government considered the case of the appellant. It was found that the appellant willfully remains absent during the period 18.1974 to 30.4.1991 i.e. 17 years. Thus, it was a case of abandoning the job. Thus, the State Government forfeited the services of the appellant for the period 1974 to 1991 under Rule 86(1) of RSR. It was also found that the appellant had completed the age of 58 years on 30th April, 1991 but by misleading the department he joined the duties on 5.1991. 4. We are of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled for pension, as he had abandoned the job, as back as in the year 1974. In our view, the State Government by order dated 110.2002 has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled to pension. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Before parting with, we disapprove, the manner in which the Tribunal has adjudicated the matter. We have also not been able to understand the compelling reasons for the Administrative Department to oblige the appellant by issuing order dated 24.1991. The Chief Secretary is directed to look into the matter. 5. Before parting with, we disapprove, the manner in which the Tribunal has adjudicated the matter. We have also not been able to understand the compelling reasons for the Administrative Department to oblige the appellant by issuing order dated 24.1991. The Chief Secretary is directed to look into the matter. An enquiry be initiated against concerned person, if necessary. A copy of the order be also sent to Rajasthan Service Appellate Tribunal as well as Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur.