Jay Prakash Gautam vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5280 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017534]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8511/2021

Jay Prakash Gautam S/o Shri Parshu Ram Gautam, Aged About 60 Years, Makan No. 87, Sector No. 12/L, Ward No. 13M, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education (Group-II), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Bikaner, District Bikaner.

4. The Chief District Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary Mr. Ravi Panwar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/05/2023 I.A. No.1/2023:

1. For the reasons stated and considering that the petitioner is

not getting his retiral dues, since his retirement on 31.01.2021,

the application is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8511/2021

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged

the communication dated 18.03.2021, issued by the respondent

[2023/RJJD/017534] (2 of 3) [CW-8511/2021]

No.4 - The Chief District Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha,

Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, requiring the petitioner to

submit application for provisional pension.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner got retired on

31.01.2021, whereafter his case for pension was forwarded by the

competent authority. However, when the matter reached the

Directorate, an objection was raised that a special inquiry in

relation to an incident, which took place in 1996, is pending

against the petitioner. The respondent No.4, therefore, issued the

impugned communication dated 18.03.2021 and letter dated

10.06.2021, requiring the petitioner to give his consent for

provisional pension.

3. Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

the respondents' action of not paying retiral dues and pension to

the petitioner is illegal, inasmuch as, no departmental or

disciplinary inquiry is pending against the petitioner.

4. He further argued that in relation to an incident, which took

place way back in the year 1996, the respondents cannot

justifiably take any action, much less departmental/disciplinary

enquiry against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned communication

be quashed, and the respondents be directed to give full pension

and retiral dues to the petitioner.

6. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied

upon the judgment dated 19.07.2002, passed by the Jaipur Bench

of this Court in the case of N.K. Dalal Vs. State of Rajasthan :

2004 1 RLW (Raj.) 597.

7. Heard.

[2023/RJJD/017534] (3 of 3) [CW-8511/2021]

8. Learned counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the

Court as to how the Department can initiate any proceedings,

much less disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an

incident which took place way back in the year 1996 and that too

when the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2021.

9. In view of above and following the judgment rendered in the

case of N.K. Dalal (supra) the present writ petition is allowed.

10. The impugned communication dated 18.03.2021 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

11. The respondents are directed to pay entire retiral dues and

process petitioner's case for pension, as early as possible

preferably within eight weeks from today.

12. Petitioner's right to claim the interest from the respondents

shall stand reserved.

13. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 145-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)