Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Lal Bissu vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41555) on 1 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41555]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5908/2021
1. Manohar Lal Bissu S/o Sahi Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
Ward No.10, Pakka Saharana, 24 Llw-A, Tehsil And
District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
2. Arvinder Singh S/o Raghbeer Singh, Aged About 52
Years, 1/25 (257 A), Street No.6, Setia Colony, Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
3. Vandana Sharma D/o Hanuman Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, 1016-B, Agrasen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
4. Urmial Choudhary W/o Anil Kumar, Aged About 52 Years,
A-48, A-Block, Kanak Vrindavan, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
Panchyawala, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Ka-2),
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Registrar.
4. The Director, Directorate Department Of Pension And
Pensioners Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
5. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC a/w
Mr. Sarwan Kumar, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 01/12/2023 (Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:39:27 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:41555] (2 of 4) [CW-5908/2021]
1. The basic issue involved in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for benefits of Old Pension Scheme under the Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 08.10.2015, passed by this Court in SBCWP No.9695/2014 Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein this Court has held as under :-
"A bare look at the order passed by the Division Bench while rejecting the appeal filed by the State would reveal that a specific directions was given that the petitioners would be permitted to join on their respective place of postings; would be entitled to actual emoluments of post only with effect from the date when they actually join their duties, but for the purpose of seniority and other benefits, they shall not be placed at lesser advantageous position than those who have been allowed to join their duties in pursuance of the order issued initially in pursuance of the same selections. The said stipulation as indicated in the order of Division Bench was clearly reflected in the order of appointment dated 24.02.2005 (Annex6), wherein it was indicated that the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits including the benefits pertaining to seniority and other benefits as granted to appointees under Order dated 05.09.2003. In view of specific direction by the Division Bench and the stipulation made in the order of appointment, their does not appear to be any reason for the respondents to treat the petitioners different from the appointees under order dated 05.09.2003, who admittedly are governed by provisions of Pension Rules, 1996.(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:39:27 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41555] (3 of 4) [CW-5908/2021] The submission that as the petitioners joined post after coming into force of Contributory Pension Rules, 2005, therefore, they would not be entitled to relief, in view of the specific directions of the Division Bench and stipulation made in the order dated 24.02.2005 such a submission is wholly baseless.
This Court in the case of Madusudan (supra) while dealing with a similar nature controversy held as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was also granted seniority as well as other benefits from the year 1998-1999. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated person - Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme, however, the petitioner has not been granted the said benefits only for the reason that the appointment was granted to him in the year 2005.When the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy in the year 1998- 1999 and was also assigned seniority from the year 1998- 1999, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of the old pension scheme to the petitioner applicable is not tenable. It is also noticed that when the similarly situated person was granted the said benefit, though appointed after the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents are not justifying in denying the said benefit to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the petitioner as per old pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
In view of above discussions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits including benefit of Pension Rules, 1996 and ACP with all consequential benefits to the petitioners as indicated in the order (Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:39:27 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:41555] (4 of 4) [CW-5908/2021] passed by the Division Bench and order dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-6).
The exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents.
No order as to costs."
3. Following the adjudication made in Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed.
4. The petitioners are held entitled for benefit of Old Pension Scheme and all other benefits as has been awarded in the case of Durga Ram (supra). Needful be done within a period of three months from today. Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
203-/Jitender//-
(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:39:27 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)