Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 464 (RAJ)

Balwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2008-02-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing the instant petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs : "(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the action of the non-petitioners in declining pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the period of 7 years and 7 months from 30.7.1968 to September 1975 to be wholly illegal, unreasonable, unjustified and unconstitutional; (ii) issue an appropriate, writ order or direction thereby declaring the petitioner entitled to get all the pensionary benefits from 30.7.1968 the date of his initial appointment in the department; (iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the non petitioners to pay the petitioner entire pensionary benefits w.e.f. 30.7.1968 till Sept., 1975 forthwith; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to pay the entire arrears of pension to the petitioner from 30.7.1968 till Sept. 1975 without any delay; (v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. to the petitioner on the sum of arrears of pension amount from 31.3.1999 the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment of such arrears; (vi) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the officials/officers of the respondents declination of such pensionary benefits to the petitioner to pay an exemplary costs of Rs. 6 Lacs for illegally and unncessarily harassing the petitioner and causing him huge financial hardship/loss for his no fault." 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Auction Clerk on 16.7.1968 on temporary basis in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sangariya (Hanumangarli). On 8.8.1968, Chairman, Agricultural Marketing Produce Society, Sangariya issued a letter to the Assistant Marketing Officer, for obtaining sanction for appointment of petitioner for six months. On 1.9.1982, the respondent No. 2 issued an order, whereby the employees similarly situated to the present petitioner were declared as permanent w.e.f. 1.7.1974 and the name of petitioner in the aforesaid order appears at S.No. 6. The respondents thereafter prepared seniority list of confirmed employees working in different Divisions and in the aforesaid prepared seniority list, the petitioner was at S.No. 42. On 6.6.1984 the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC and in the seniority list of UDCs the name of the petitioner was at S.No. 8. The respondents thereafter prepared seniority list of confirmed employees working in different Divisions and in the aforesaid prepared seniority list, the petitioner was at S.No. 42. On 6.6.1984 the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC and in the seniority list of UDCs the name of the petitioner was at S.No. 8. Vide order dated 1.11.1995, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Supervisor and in this order, the name of petitioner appears at S.No. 15. 3. The petitioner was to retire on 31.3.1999 and because of this reason he requested the respondent authorities to complete his service record so that he may get pension but the respondent authorities declined to count his service from 30.7.1968 to Sept. 1975 and on 31.3.1999 the respondent authorities issued a service retirement order. Alongwith this Service Retirement Order, the petitioner was also issued Pension Pay Order, in which the petitioner was not given the pensionary benefits from 30.7.1968 to Sept. 1975. The petitioner thereafter requested the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits for the aforesaid period but with no result. Ultimately, the petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice raising his grievance but it was also with of no result. 4. Petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid actions of the respondents, preferred the instant petition before this Court. 5. Respondents filed a detailed reply to the writ petition. In para 6 of reply it is stated that Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi Service Pension Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules of 1995') were made applicable vide order dated 21.3.1995 w.e.f. the date of submitting option by the employees in terms of Rule 3 and as per provisions of Rule 10(2), the qualifying service for the purpose of pension shall be computed from the date of contribution by the employee to the contributory Provident Fund or to the Pension Fund, as the case may be. The respondents have averred in the reply that the petitioner commenced his contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.3.1976 and submitted his option and accepted the applicability of the Rules of 1995. The respondents have averred in the reply that the petitioner commenced his contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.3.1976 and submitted his option and accepted the applicability of the Rules of 1995. Thus, the respondents rightly computed the qualifying service of the petitioner from 1.3.1976 and the service rendered by the petitioner prior to 1.3.1976 rightly discarded as per provisions of Rule 3 and 10(2) of the Rules of 1995 and because of this reason the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The petitioner is entitled for the pension from the date of contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund by himself i.e. 1.3.1976 in terms of the provisions of Rule 10(2) read with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me during the course of arguments. 6. Much reliance has been placed upon an order dated 15.2.2005 passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in SBCW P.No. 1288/03, Rajendra Nath Sharma and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, alongwith one connected matter. I have also considered it and it appears that the case of the present petitioner is on same footing as of Mr. Rajendra Nath Sharma (supra). The operative portion of the Judgment is reproduced here-in-below : "In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to get benefit for the purpose of pension and gratuity while counting their services from the date of initial appointment i.e. for petitioner No. 1 as 1.5.1964, petitioner No. 2 as 13.11.1967 and for petitioner Ram Pratap as 6.9.1969, rather than considering their case from the date of deduction of CPF for the purpose of qualifying service for the grant of pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits and arrears of pension. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioners, as mentioned above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, otherwise the petitioners would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after expiry of three months' period, till the date of making final payment of amount to the petitioners." 7. Against the order dated 15.2.2005, passed by learned Single Bench of this Court, the State preferred a D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 243/2005, the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary and another v. Ram Pratap and another. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.7.2005 has pleased to dismiss the special appeal, the operative portion whereof is reproduced here-in-below : "No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal stands dismissed." 8. In another judgment of this Court dated 2.5.2007 passed in SBCWP No. 8336/2004, Kedar Nath and anr. v. State of Rajasthan. and others, and six other connected matters similar benefits have been given. The operative portion of the order dated 2.5.2007 is reproduced here in below : "In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The respondents are directed to compute the qualifying service of the petitioners rendered by them prior to 20.10.1978 and difference of pension shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further appropriate orders be passed regarding pension by counting their service from the date of their initial appointment as per aforesaid direction for the purpose of pension." 9. In my view of the aforesaid cases are fully applicable in the instant case. 10. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 30.7.1968, rather than from the date of deduction of CPF for the purpose of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. The respondents are further directed to decide the case of the petitioner, as mentioned above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, otherwise the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @12% p.a. after expiry of three months, till the date of making final payment of amount to the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******