Smt. Tulsi Bai vs Maharana Pratap University Of A ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17571 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 17571 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Tulsi Bai vs Maharana Pratap University Of A ... on 24 November, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2010

Smt. Tulsi Bai w/o Late Shri Hamera Dangi aged about 41 years, R/o Dangiyon Ki Pancholi, Post Bhoiyo Ki Pancholi, Pnachayat Samiti Girva, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharana Pratap University of agriculture & technology, Udaipur through its Registrar.

2. Dean, Rajasthan College of agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of agriculture & technology, Udaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s)          :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                           Judgment / Order

24/11/2021

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was

an ex-cadre employee of the Maharana Pratap University of

Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur. He was appointed in the year

1988 as a casual labour and was allowed pay-scale of ex-cadre

employee by the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner. He

was also allowed periodical increments as well as annual grade

increments by the respondent-University while treating him as an

ex-cadre employee. The petitioner's husband died on 03.05.2009

and, thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

the following reliefs :-

"It is therefore, prayed that record of the case may be called for by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(2 of 4) [CW-3453/2010]

1. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow all terminal benefits to the petitioner, including family pension, etc. after granting the benefit of revision of pay scale revised from time to time with all consequential benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 12% upon retiral benefits.

2. Any other relief which is considered just and proper be granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. the writ petition may be allowed with costs throughout."

It appears that a submission was made before this Court on

21st May, 2012 to allow the writ petition of the petitioner in terms

of the judgment dated 8th September, 2008 passed by the learned

Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1503/2006 (Bhana Ram vs.

Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Ors.), however,

the learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the fact

that against the aforesaid judgment, a D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1038/2008 is pending before Division Bench of this Court has

ordered to list this writ petition after disposal of the above

referred Special Appeal (Writ). The Division Bench of this Court

while allowing the DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1038/2008 (The

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner & Ors. vs. Bhana

Ram) vide order dated 10.01.2018 has passed the following order

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts noted by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute. The respondent was appointed as a casual labour on 08.06.1987 and as per the policy decision of the appellants taken in the year 1990, his named was entered in a list of workers appointed as casual labour. As per the policy those who had rendered 10 years services became entitled to be paid salary in the applicable pay scale. Keeping in view the analogous posts where similar work was been done by permanent employees, the respondent was placed in the pay scale ₹1925-2395. For purposes of payment of salary his appointment was treated as one against an ex-cadre post. This was w.e.f. 01.05.2001.

(3 of 4) [CW-3453/2010]

3. The respondent superannuated from service in the year 2005 and claimed pension. The applicable University Pension Regulations of 1990, vide Regulation 2 provide as under:-

" Regulation 2:- Scope and Application:

(i). These regulations shall apply to all persons regularly appointed to the service of the University on or before 01.01.1990.

(ii). These regulations shall also apply to all existing employees - both teaching and non-

teaching - who opt for pension scheme under these regulations within the period specified in Reg. 4 for exercising option. In case of employees who do not exercise option within the specified period, it will be deemed that the concerned employee not opted for the pension scheme under these regulations. Provided that these regulations shall not apply to:-

(a). Persons employed on contract or part- time basis.

(b). Persons on deputation to the University.

(c). Purely temporary and daily wages staff.

(d). Re-employed pensioners."

4. Granting relief to the respondent the learned Single Judge has referred to Sub-Rule (ii) of the Regulation 2 of the Pension Regulations, 1990 and has held that only such persons who are specifically enumerated in the Proviso to Regulation 2 (ii) are not entitled to grant of pension and since the respondent was not holding status of contractual employee on part-time basis nor deputed to the University nor temporary daily wage staff nor re- employed pensioners, the respondent would be entitled to pension.

5. Regretfully, the learned Single Judge has overlooked Regulation 2(i). The Regulation makes it clear that it would apply to persons who are regularly appointed.

6. Suffice it to state that to be entitled to pension, an employee must be regularly appointed and that would mean against a sanctioned post. Admittedly, by the time the respondent attained the age of superannuation no vacant post was available in the cadre strength and thus the respondent retired while working on against an ex-cadre post.