Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1734 (RAJ)

Yaswant Kumar Nair v. State of Rajasthan

2015-10-05

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally. The writ petition has been filed for following prayer - "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept & allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction direct the respondents to sanction and pay retirement pension, arrears of pension and retiral dues including Gratuity, GPF, Leave Encashment, commutation of pension, etc. and also the amount of Medical Bills Rs.56,334/- and due salary for the period from 01.10.2009 to 20.12.2012 (27 months 20 days) to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from the day following his retirement i.e. 21.12.2012." 2. The petitioner is one who has not been paid retiral benefits including Gratuity, GPF, Leave Encashment, commutation of pension etc despite his voluntary retirement on 21.12.2012. He has been denied salary for the period from 1.10.2009 to 20.12.2012 so also reimbursement of medical bills for Rs.56,334/-. The denial of those benefits are mainly on the ground that petitioner failed to pass typing test after his appointment as LDC on compassionate grounds. The appointment order dated 17.3.1993 at annexure-1 does not impose condition to pass typing test, rather, it is given in the regular pay scale though shown to be on temporary basis for a period of one year. 3. The reply to the writ petition has been filed. It has been stated that petitioner was appointed under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules of 1996) and as per rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, an employee is under an obligation to pass typing test within a period of three years. 4. The reply given by the respondents No.1 to 3 is shocking as they have applied Rules of 1996 for an appointment given in the year 1993 i.e. almost three years back. It was, in fact, under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. In view of above, though the Rules of 1996 are not applicable in the instant case, yet reply makes a reference just to mislead the court. It was, in fact, under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. In view of above, though the Rules of 1996 are not applicable in the instant case, yet reply makes a reference just to mislead the court. It is even in ignorance of the fact that not only the Department of Personnel (DOP), vide its letter dated 08.12.1996 but subsequently order of the Finance Department dated 20.1.1998, it was made clear that it would not be necessary to pass typing test if the appointment is made on compassionate ground without such a condition. The order dated 20.1.1998 issued by the Finance Department also clarifies that if the appointment does not contain a condition to pass typing test then it would not be applied and, in those cases, appointment would be treated as regular from the initial date of appointment. The perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioner at annexure-1 does not show a condition to pass typing test within three years. 5. This court even asked the respondents to file an additional affidavit to indicate as to whether they had conducted typing test so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to pass typing test during his service tenure. An additional affidavit to this query has been filed indicating that so far as respondents are concerned, they did not conduct type test, rather, it is conducted by the Department of Language and Library (Government Press). 6. The documents enclosed along with the reply also provides for necessity to pass typing test in reference to the Rules of 1996. It is again in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 under the Rules of 1975 and not under the Rules of 1996. 7. In view of aforesaid, denial of retiral benefits to the petitioner is illegal so as denial of salary for the period from 1.10.2009 to 20.12.2012. The respondents were not having authority to stop the payment of salary. If, at all, some recovery was to be made, it could have been made subsequently though, in the instant case, even recovery from the petitioner is not permissible. He was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 17.3.1993 followed by fixation of salary and other benefits. The respondents were not having authority to stop the payment of salary. If, at all, some recovery was to be made, it could have been made subsequently though, in the instant case, even recovery from the petitioner is not permissible. He was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 17.3.1993 followed by fixation of salary and other benefits. The action of the non-petitioners is illegal thus, even recovery is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case, that too, from a retired employee. 8. In the same manner, reimbursement of medical bills has not been allowed in favour of the petitioner to the extent it is permissible. 9. It is a case of harassment of the petitioner in the hands of the respondent-State. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner when all his efforts yield no results. The petitioner is thus suffering for last two and half years and has been forced to carry on his livelihood without any means. The way respondents have proceeded in the case, is deprecated. 10. In fact, a notice for prosecution of the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the reply to the writ petition could have been given, however, I am informed that he has been transferred. It is looking to the misleading reply given by him in reference to the Rules of 1996, whereas, the appointment of the petitioner was made under the Rules of 1975. 11. In view of aforesaid, petitioner is entitled to the costs and interest on the delayed payment. The cost is not for litigation but for sufferance of the petitioner also. 12. Accordingly, while accepting the writ petition, respondents are directed to pay due salary to the petitioner from the period starting 1.10.2009 till 20.12.2012 with all other retiral benefits so as to reimburs medical bills, as permissible. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case and the manner respondents acted, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The petitioner would further be entitled to the costs of Rs.25,000/-. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any delay in compliance of the order would carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment thereafter. The petitioner would further be entitled to the costs of Rs.25,000/-. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any delay in compliance of the order would carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment thereafter. In case of delay in compliance of this order, additional interest to be brone by the respondents should be recovered from the salary of the officer/official who commits delay in making compliance of the order.Writ Petition Allowed. *******