Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanheyalal Agarwal vs State & Ors on 17 November, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
SBCWP No.1497/2011
Kanheyalal Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
13
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1497/2011
Kanheyalal Agarwal
vs
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER: 17th November 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Rathore, Government Counsel for the respondents.
<><><> The learned Government Counsel Mr. D.S. Rathore appears for the respondents. Therefore, service is complete.
The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in this writ petition stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in SBCWP No.1547/2009 : Ramkaran Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 16.12.2010; and that the said decision has since been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court when the intra-court appeal (SAW No.106/2011) came to be dismissed on 04.03.2011.
In Ramkaran Choudhary's case (supra), this Court has observed and directed as under:
"This Court in the case of Adhik Lal Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.3552/2001, decided on July 06, 2004) held that Rule 10.2 of the Rules of 1995 was framed ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, that provides for grant of pension even to temporary employees, and thus the sub-Rule (2) of Rules of 1995 was declared ultra virus to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On basis of judgment above, in the case of Rajendra Nath Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.1288/2003) and Ram Pratap vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.1719/2001), this Court directed the Government of Rajasthan to determine pension and all other pensionary benefits of the employees of the Directorate of Agriculture Marketing from the date of their initial appointment. The judgment passed by this Court in Rajendra Nath Sharma and Ram Pratap referred above stood affirmed by a Division Bench by rejecting the appeals preferred by the State Government. In the instant matter, the petitioner was employed on 21.8.1974, but the respondents are providing pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner as per provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1995, i.e., apparently illegal in view of the judgment of this Court in Adhik Lal Chaudhary (supra) and other matters, references of those are given above.
Accordingly, this petition for writ stands allowed. The respondents are directed to determine pension and all other post retiral benefits to the petitioner in light of the directions given by 2 SBCWP No.1497/2011 Kanheyalal Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
this Court in the case of Adhik Lal Chaudhary. Necessary modifications is also required to be made in the Pension Payment Order issued by the respondents. The petitioner is also declared for all arrears accruing as a consequent to revision of his pension in view of the directions above. The execution of the directions above is required to be made within a period of three months from today."
The observations and directions aforesaid squarely apply to the present petitioner's case too.
Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed in the same manner and in the same terms as per the decision of this Court in Ramkaran Choudhary's case (supra). No costs.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI], J.
cpgoyal/-