Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Badami Lal Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 3) [CW-1436/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1436/2021
1. Badami Lal Jain S/o Nathu Lal Jain, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Salada, Tehsil Sarada, Udaipur
2. Hemlata Sharma W/o Late Hukmi Chandra, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Maa Kripa, Aadarsh Colony, Titardi, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Establishment (K-2) Department, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Education (Grade -Iii) Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Secondary - Ii, Udaipur.
5. The District Education Officer, Secondary - I, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.D. Charan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni for
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
03/02/2021
The basic issue involved in the present petition is, whether
the petitioners are entitled for benefits of Old Pension Scheme
under the Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 :-
(2 of 3) [CW-1436/2021]
"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 (Annex-6), 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. 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
(3 of 3) [CW-1436/2021]
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
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."
Mr. Rishi Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and
law.
Following the adjudication made in Durga Ram Jat Vs. State
of Rajasthan (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed.
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 petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
94-PKS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
