The division judge bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K Maheshwari of the apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan & others Vs O.P Gupta held that the Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation subsequently merged with the Engineering Board. As a result, the Respondent's services were transferred to the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation on the same pay scale. He worked for Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation until April 12, 1977. After that, the advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ( “RPSC”), and the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries). The Respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), Department of Industries, State of Rajasthan. The Respondent reached the age of superannuation while working for the Department of Industries and retired on 30th April 2003. The Petitioners did not count the tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 when calculating pension and other retirement benefits. The Respondent made representations to the Department of Industries, requesting that his service from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 be counted for pension and retiral benefits. However, the request to count the service tenure from January 13, 1967 to April 12, 1977, was denied.
Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed the writ petition before the single judge bench of the High court and the court held that the services rendered during the period 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 were liable to be counted while computing pension/other pensionary benefits of the Respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner-state filed an appeal before the division judge bench of the high court and the division judge bench of the high court dismissed the writ application.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the Respondent has retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner-State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before the resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post. It is to be deemed that there has been a disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channels by obtaining the requisite approvals. It was further stated that it is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State. May be there was a delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition, however, it is well settled that the laws of limitation do not apply to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is a gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled.
The hon’ble court argued that the denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints. It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation that goes in favor of the employee. At last, the hon’ble court held that the court find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the high court.
CASE NAME- State of Rajasthan & others Vs O.P Gupta
CITATION- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO…………….. of 2022
CORUM- Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K Maheshwari
DATE-19.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :