Judgment : 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 22.10.2019, whereby the order qua payment of pension was cancelled for the reason that period of services rendered by the petitioner is less than 10 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Conductor in the Year 1985 and regularized in the Year 1986. 3. It is further submitted that on account of allegations qua negligence whilst rendering services, respondents terminated the petitioner from the services in the Year 1999. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the said termination order before the learned Labour Court-1, Jaipur, wherein, learned Labour Court by virtue of order dated 24.09.2015 substituted the termination with compulsory retirement along with all due benefits (Annexue-6). 4. Consequently, the said order passed by learned Labour Court was challenged by the respondents before the High Court, wherein, High Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2016 in SBCWP No. 9558/2016 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. RSRTC and Ors., dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision passed by learned Labour Court. 5. Additionally, it is submitted that respondents in an apparent attempt to further demean and humiliate the impecunious employee, approached Division Bench assailing the above stated order, which ultimately dismissed their appeal vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 in DBSAW No. 585/2017 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. Sharvan Lal, thereby upholding the original order and compounding the respondents dissatisfaction. 6. Thereafter, respondents persistent in their efforts to overturn the adverse decision, assailed the Division Bench’ judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereby, Hon’ble Apex Court declined to intervene, thereby dismissing their Special Leave Petition No.25071/2018 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. Sharvan Lal vide order dated 06.08.2018. 7. Furthermore, it is submitted that respondents in compliance of the above stated orders, passed an order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-12), to release all the pensionary benefits qua the petitioner, however, despite the said sanction department did not release any pensionary benefits for a long time, and instead passed an impugned order withdrawing the benefits due to the petitioner. 8. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed approximately 13 years of service with the respondent department since the date of appointment till the date of compulsory retirement. In support of same reliance is placed upon Annexure-13. 9. 8. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed approximately 13 years of service with the respondent department since the date of appointment till the date of compulsory retirement. In support of same reliance is placed upon Annexure-13. 9. The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has called for an explanation qua the calculation of 10 year period and applicable rules qua the same. Pursuance to the same, vide Annexure/1(page 86), Shri Hemant Sharma, Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C, Baran has apprised, that the petitioner has worked for a period of 1840 days (1986-1999) i.e. approximately five years and the absented period is calculated as approximately 2922 days, implying that the tenure of service rendered by the petitioner is less than 10 years. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same is due to various suspensions made on various occasions qua the petitioner. 10. In this background, learned Senior Counsel Ms. Gayatri Rathore, has drawn attention of this Court on various rules of the RSRTC Employee Pension Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “Regulation of 1989”) applicable qua the employees of RSRTC, more particularly Rule 8, Rule 11, Rule 13, Rule 16, Rule 18 and allied provisions of “Regulation of 1989”, and submitted that once the Labour Court has passed an award with the categorical directions for granting benefits till the period of termination/compulsory retirement, and respondents have never, at that time, brought the said fact/argument on record qua period of services, therefore pensionary benefits should be granted to the petitioner from the period of regularization till the date of compulsory retirement. 11. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Pranav Bhansali and Mr. Anubodh Jain the erstwhile counsel, have refuted the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the contents reflected at ‘page 86’ of the petition it is evident that on various occasions the petitioner was suspended on account of his inactions. 12. 11. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Pranav Bhansali and Mr. Anubodh Jain the erstwhile counsel, have refuted the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the contents reflected at ‘page 86’ of the petition it is evident that on various occasions the petitioner was suspended on account of his inactions. 12. Further, while placing reliance upon Rule 19(1)(d) of Regulation of 1989, it is submitted that when there is service disruption and the petitioner was suspended, the amount of pension and the length of service will be calculated and decided, as per Rule 54 of Rajasthan Service Pension Rules and Regulations, 1996 (herein after referred as Regulations of 1996), therefore, if service period is less than 10 years then pensionary benefit cannot be granted. 13. Additionally, reliance is placed upon 35(vi)(c) of Standing Orders, 1965, which deals with period of suspension of an employee, and submitted that if the workmen is absent from duty during the period of suspension, then such workmen shall not be entitled to any remuneration. 14. Heard and considered. 15. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the records, and judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations: - 15.1 That petitioner has filed present petition after a prolonged litigation that started in the Year 1999. 15.2 Upon a perusal of the learned Labour Court order, this Court has noted that learned Labour Court has expressly stated that termination order of the petitioner is converted into the compulsory retirement along with all consequential retiral benefits. 15.3 The respondent-Corporation, premised on the above stated observation/order, was led to believe that it would be obligated to discharge a significant financial liability in favour of the petitioner, who was subjected to compulsory retirement as opposed to termination. 15.4 Consequently, the respondent-Corporation assailed the decision of learned Labour Court through a protracted appellate process, which encompassed successive petitions before the High Court and ultimately, the Hon’ble Apex Court. The litigation, which spanned nearly two decades (1999-2018), entailed a pronounced asymmetry of resources, pitting the Corporation against the petitioner, a conductor of modest means. 15.4 Consequently, the respondent-Corporation assailed the decision of learned Labour Court through a protracted appellate process, which encompassed successive petitions before the High Court and ultimately, the Hon’ble Apex Court. The litigation, which spanned nearly two decades (1999-2018), entailed a pronounced asymmetry of resources, pitting the Corporation against the petitioner, a conductor of modest means. 15.5 Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the respondents have taken a contrary view against the order dated 10.06.2019, wherein Corporation gave administrative sanction for release of benefits that petitioner is entitled on compulsory retirement, and learned Labour Court order and passed an impugned order dated 22.10.2019. 15.6 Upon perusal of order dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure- 13), it is noted that the petitioner was regularized in the Year 1986 and subsequently compulsory retired in the Year 1999 and basic salary of the employee is stated as Rs. 3200/- from 01.09.1996, despite the same, respondents have taken a contrary view and counted the service period of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner. 15.7 Upon perusal of pension payment order (Annexure-17), it is noted that the petitioner has not received the full pension amount entitled to him. 15.8 Upon perusal of the learned Labour Court order, more specifically para 5 at page 27 and para 16 at page 34, it is noted that the respondents placed no evidence qua the allegations levelled in the charge sheet and disclosed the fact qua suspension before the learned Labour Court, therefore, learned Labour Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances along with records placed before it has passed a speaking order to award the petitioner all consequential benefits of retiral dues without any express deductions. 15.9 This Court has perused the relevant Rules and Regulations qua compulsory retirement and it is noted that in the event of compulsory retirement as a penalty, an employee of the corporation shall be entitled to receive a pension or gratuity, or both, at a rate that is not less than two-third and not more than the full pension or gratuity that would have been admissible to the respective employee on the date of compulsory retirement. The relevant part of the same is reproduced below for the ready reference: - “Compulsory retirement as penalty A corporation employee compulsorily retired from service as penalty may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two third and not more than fully pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.” 15.10 In the case in hand, learned Labour Court order does not explicitly provide for any deductions, therefore, it can be implied that the Court directed the payment of full pension from the date of regularization till termination/compulsory retirement. The absence of an express order regarding deductions precludes any such inference. 15.11 That pursuant to the provision of Rule 11 of the Regulations of 1989, it is noted that the pension should be given to the employee who fulfills the stipulated conditions, i.e. employee must render service under the corporation and secondly employment must be in substantive/permanent capacity, therefore, in the case in hand, it is noted that the petitioner was a regular employee ever since 1986. 15.12 Rule 18 of the Regulations of 1989 states that the period of suspension shall not be counted unless the competent authority expressly declares the same, therefore, until and unless it is expressed precisely qua the inclusion or exclusion of period of suspension, then the same shall not be excluded for calculation of periods qua grant of pensionary and other benefits and no unnecessary deduction in the number of working days to be made. 15.13 That learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon Rule 24 of the Regulations of 1989 read with Rule 54 of the Regulations of 1996, however, taking note of the above said and Annexure-13, the calculation of period qua the pension and other retirement dues will be counted from the date of regularization i.e. 13.06.1986 till the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 28.07.1999. 15.14 The standing order which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason spelled out hereinabove. 16. Taking note of the aforementioned, and perusal of Court file and details provided by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is reflected that a sum of Rs. 16. Taking note of the aforementioned, and perusal of Court file and details provided by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is reflected that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- approximately is spent on the prolonged litigation (as admitted by the respondents), and the petitioner, who is at the fag end of his life, is made to suffer since the passing of termination order till the present date and is made to run pillar to post for the meager amount of Rs. 27,000/- approximately, as calculated by respondents treating petitioners’ period of service as less than 10 years taking into consideration the suspension period. 17. That the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner was a member of GPF and the principle amount payable to the petitioner was calculated as Rs. 27,000/- approximately, however, after the learned Labour Courts’ order and order dated 10.06.2019, whereby the petitioner was declared as regular employee of the Corporation, respondents were of the view that they would have to discharge a hefty amount to the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the view, that if respondents have calculated the said amount, albeit in an arbitrary manner, then for what reasons they have taken a somersault on the said orders and calculated the service of petitioner less than 10 Years and passed an impugned order withdrawing the benefits, moresoever, when respondents have not raised the said plea before the learned Labour Court. 18. The fact that when respondents have declared the petitioner as regular employee then for what reasons respondent- Corporation are hesitating in regularizing the service and grant consequential benefits accordingly to the petitioner. Therefore, persistence of respondents in contesting the matter till the Hon’ble Apex Court for such a meager amount serves a stark illustration of this misguided approach, and same is illegal, perverse and dehors the Rules, more-soever when vide order dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure-13), respondents have admitted that the service of the petitioner shall be counted from the period of regularization till the date of compulsory retirement i.e.1986-1999. 19. In light of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the Corporation’s employees, who are essentially the backbone of the organization, are embroiled in protracted and compulsory litigation. Regrettably, this litigation was pursued sans a thorough analysis of its merits, resulting in a significant waste of resources. 19. In light of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the Corporation’s employees, who are essentially the backbone of the organization, are embroiled in protracted and compulsory litigation. Regrettably, this litigation was pursued sans a thorough analysis of its merits, resulting in a significant waste of resources. Given that the corporation is already operating at a loss, it is particularly egregious that valuable resources were squandered on a matter that was ultimately deemed unworthy of pursuit. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it apposite to impose a cost of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousands Only) on the respondent-Corporation in order to balance the equities in the case. The said cost shall be borne by the CMD, In-charge legal, Executive Director, and other officers, who shall reimburse the said amount from their salaries on a pro-rata basis, howsoever the said cost shall be reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) if respondents release all consequential reliefs and dues from the date of regularization till the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 1986 to 1999, along with interest @ 6 percent per annum, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment. 21. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed with the aforementioned direction. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.