Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Mangi Bai vs Raj. Civil Services Appellat And ... on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2015
Govardhan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Civil Services Appellat And Ors.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 153/2015
Smt. Sheelawanti
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj.civil Ser. Appl. Tri. , Jaipur And Ors
----Respondent
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2147/2015
Smt. Dharma Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
The Raj. Civil Service Appellate And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2467/2015
Ratna
----Petitioner
Versus
The Raj. Civil Service Appellate And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3407/2015
Smt. Mangi Bai
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Civil Services Appellat And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari with
Mr. Mohit Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilash Kumbhat
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/02/2022
The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with
the averments that they were originally the workcharge
employees and had worked for a long period of more than 10
(2 of 3) [CW-6269/2015]
years with the Department. They prayed that in the light of
judgment passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)
No.1590/2014; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Giri,
they ought to be granted pensionary benefits as per the provisions
of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and further as per the
provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio as laid
down in Bhagwan Giri's case (supra) would not apply to the
present petitioners as they were the work charge employees and
were never merged in the State cadre. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner workmen is required to be examined as per the
provisions of the Standing Order for the workers of Mahi Bajaj
Sagar Project, Banswara and not as per any other Rules.
Similar controversy arose in the matter of State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hanja; D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(W) No.1589/2014, wherein, while allowing the appeal of the
State, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:
"These appeals are preferred to question correctness
of the judgment dated 25.4.2014 passed by the
learned Single Bench
declaring the respondent-petitioners workmen
entitled for pensionary benefits as per Rule 22 A of
the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R) Including Garden,
Irrigation, Water Works, Ayurvedic Departments
Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964.
Learned Additional
Advocate General at the threshold states that the
case of the respondents-workmen are required to be
examined as per provisions of the Standing Order
for the Workers of Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project,
Banswara and not as per the Rules of 1964.
In the rules of 1964, the work charged
employees are entitled for pensionary benefits as
per Rule 22 A and the Order 13
A of the Standing Orders is paramateria to the
same, therefore, mere mentioning of Rule 22 A in
(3 of 3) [CW-6269/2015]
the judgment impugned in our
considered opinion is immaterial.
We have examined all the cases. It is not in
dispute that under Order 13A, pension could have
been awarded to the respondent-workmen only after
exercising option as per Clause(3) of the same
order. True it is, after introduction of Order 13A on
23.1.1990, opportunity was further given to the
respondent-workmen to opt for pensionary benefits
under the circulars dated 13.7.1994 and 4.9.2006
but no material is available on record to arrive at the
conclusion that the respondent-workmen ever
exercised their discretion to opt for pensionary
benefits.
In view of it, we are of the considered opinion
that the learned Single Bench erred while extending
the pensionary benefits to the respondent-workmen
as per Order 13A. The appeals, in view of whatever
stated above, deserve acceptance."
Both the counsels agreed on the fact that the present
controversy is covered by the ratio as laid down in Smt. Hanja's
case (supra).
In view of the submissions made, the present writ petitions
are dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any monetary
benefit has already been given to the petitioner workmen, the
same shall not be recovered.
(REKHA BORANA),J
57,58,61,62,63/AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
