Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 89 (RAJ)

Anu Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-13

GOVIND MATHUR, NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the Judgment dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2488/2012. 2. By judgment impugned, learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that Rules 27 and 33 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") are having no application qua the appellant-petitioner. 3. In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the appellant-petitioner after serving the Government of Rajasthan for a period of 04 years resigned and joined services with a public undertaking of the Government of India. After serving the public undertaking for a period of one year, he left the same and rejoined the services of the State of Rajasthan. The appellant-petitioner made a representation before the Government of Rajasthan to treat the period of break in service as part of his continuous services with the State of Rajasthan but that was not granted. Being aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ. The case of the petitioner before learned Single Bench was that as per Rules 27 and 33 of the Rules of 1996, the Government is required to condone the interruption in service. Learned Single Bench after examining the scope and thrust of the Rules concerned arrived at the conclusion that the same are having no application in the case in hand. 4. Before us, the only argument advanced by learned counsel is that Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1996 gives a broad discretion to the Government to condone interruption in service but without assigning any justifiable reason such discretion in the instant matter has not been exercised, which is of no help to the appellant-petitioner. At the threshold, we would like to mention that Rules 27 and 33 of the Rules of 1996 are having application for the interruption occurred due to serving with wholly or substantially owned or controlled undertaking by the Government. The definition of term "Government" is given under Rule 2(i) of the Rules of 1996, as per that, the Government means the State Government of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner was not serving with any corporation or local body owned or controlled by the State of Rajasthan. Hence, in general these rules are having no application. 5. The definition of term "Government" is given under Rule 2(i) of the Rules of 1996, as per that, the Government means the State Government of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner was not serving with any corporation or local body owned or controlled by the State of Rajasthan. Hence, in general these rules are having no application. 5. True it is, sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 starts with a non obstante clause and as such the provisions of Rule 27(1) are to be ignored, but then that is a broad discretion available to the Government of Rajasthan and no mandamus can be issued for exercising such a discretion. Learned Single Bench, thus, has not committed any wrong in the instant matter. No interference in the appellate jurisdiction is warranted. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.