Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Udai Kishan vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 13 December, 2013
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011
Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011
Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order : 13.12.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr M.S.Purohit, for the petitioner
Mr S.G.Ojha, for the respondents
BY THE COURT:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to change the date of retirement from 28.02.2006 to 22.02.2007 in the light of judgment dated 01.03.2007 of this Hon'ble Court passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.135/2007 and accordingly grant all retiral benefits to petitioner deeming that he stood retired on 22.02.2007;
b) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to make fixation of pay of petitioner in the pay scale revised in the light of Six Pay Commission and accordingly to revised his pension with all consequential benefits;
c) by an appropriate writ, order of direction the respondents be directed to finalize pension S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011 Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2 case of petitioner by taking into consideration the service of petitioner from his initial date of appointment i.e. 05.12.1974 till the date of his superannuation on 22.02.2007 with all consequential benefits;
d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum with compensation on the difference amount as a result of revision of his pay and pension & to pay the same within a reasonable period fixed by this on'ble Court.
e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case may warrant be also passed in favour of the petitioner and,
f) Petitioner may be awarded the costs of this writ petition."
The case as set up by the petitioner is that he was initially
appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on 05.12.1974 and was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 28.04.1980 and thereafter to the post of Office Assistant vide order dated 13.07.1988. On attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner was retired from service of the respondent No.2 on 28.02.2006.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011 Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3
The petitioner has filed this writ petition, while claiming that he was entitled to be retained in service up to 22.02.2007, the date, when clause 35-A was inserted in the service bye-laws of the Board fixing the compulsory retirement of the employees of the Board at the age of 58 years. The contention of the petitioner is that till insertion of clause 35-A, the retirement age of employees of the respondent-Board was 60 years but the respondents had retired the petitioner on 28.2.2006 on attaining the age of 58 years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the controversy involved in this writ petition has now been settled by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.135/2007 - The Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Govind Narain Lata & Anr. and two other connected appeals decided on 01.03.2007, wherein after taking into consideration the service bye-laws of the Board, this Court has held that retirement of the employees of the Board was 60 years until 22.02.2007 and the S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011 Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4 persons, who have already retired on attaining the age of 58 years but have not the age of 60 years as on that date have to be treated as members of the service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that the case of the petitioner is liable to be disposed of in terms of the above judgment.
The learned counsel for the respondents fairly agrees that the
controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and is liable to be disposed of in terms thereof.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as well as the material placed on record.
After going through the writ petition, this Court is satisfied that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.135/2007 - The Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Govind Narain Lata & Anr. (supra), wherein this Court has held as under:
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011 Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.5
"On behalf of the appellant, an apprehension was expressed that if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is allowed to stand and it is held that the retirement age of the employees of the Board was sixty years until insertion of clause 35-A, it would create an anomalous situation and cause heavy financial burden on the Board, for, it was stated, a large number of employees have retired in the past on attaining the age of fifty eight years and they may lodge claim for their salary, emoluments etc. It was stated that if they have not worked during the period they should not be paid salary for this period. The apprehension of the appellant, in our opinion,is unfounded. Nevertheless it requires clarifications.Having held that the retirement age of the employees of the Board was sixty years until 22.2.2007, the persons who have already retired on attaining the age of fifty eight years but have not age of sixty years as on that date have to be treated as members of the service. If they did not work during the period, they would not be entitled to salary but they would be entitled to notionally count the period as part of service and entitled to retiral benefits. Such of them who remained in active service and performed duties would be also entitled to the salary and other emoluments for the period up to 22.2.2007 or attaining the age of sixty years whichever was earlier."
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5455/2011 Udai Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6
In the present case, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on
28.02.2006, however, he was entitled to be retained in service up to 22.02.2007.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will be deemed to be in service of the respondent-Board up to 22.02.2007, however, as the petitioner had not worked from 28.02.2006 to 22.02.2007, therefore, he is not entitled to salary for the said period but the period commencing from 28.02.2006 to 22.02.2007 is liable to be notionally counted as part of service of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits.
No order as to costs.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-