Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Kamlesh Tomar vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:24159) on 27 May, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:24159]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13861/2015
Smt. Kamlesh Tomar
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Pareek.
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/05/2024
1. The grievance of the petitioner herein is primarily for
directing the respondents to release her retiral benefits, including
gratuity, and to re-fix her pension in light of the notification dated
24.01.1990 (Annex.8), along with interest as per applicable
service rules.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that
the petitioner was appointed to the post of Primary School Teacher
by order dated 05.09.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner's services
were terminated by order dated 31.07.1991. The petitioner then
approached the High Court, which granted her interim protection
by order dated 06.08.1991. Pursuant to the interim protection
granted by the Court, the petitioner was reappointed by order
dated 12.08.1991 (Annex.3).
[2024:RJ-JD:24159] (2 of 5) [CW-13861/2015]
2.1 By order dated 11.08.2014 (Annex.7), the petitioner was
given a revised selection grade effective from 2008. Aggrieved by
the selection grade year, the petitioner approached the
respondents with a representation and a copy of the notification
dated 24.01.1990. However, this was not granted to the petitioner.
The petitioner also submitted a judgment dated 14.09.2012
passed in SBCWP No.5930/2011 (Annex.9) by this Court, whereby
similarly situated persons were granted selection grade upon
completing 10 years, but the respondents did not consider the
petitioner's case.
2.2 The petitioner retired by order dated 30.08.2014 (Annex.10).
By order dated 15.10.2014 (Annex.11), the petitioner was given
only a meager amount of fixed pension of Rs.5,298/-. Aggrieved,
the petitioner filed a representation dated 03.07.2015 (Annex.12)
for re-fixation of her pension. Subsequently, the petitioner issued
a legal notice (Annex.13) to address her grievance, but to no
avail. Hence, this petition.
3. The defence taken by the respondents in their reply is that
the Director of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department passed an order dated 03.04.1993, clarifying that
untrained teachers who were not recruited as per statutory
recruitment rules would be entitled to draw the minimum of the
pay scale with admissible allowances. However, until these
teachers acquired the requisite training, they would not be entitled
to annual increments. This position was further clarified by circular
dated 03.04.2003 (Annex.R/1). In the present case, the petitioner
had not completed her training; therefore, she is not entitled to
any relief.
[2024:RJ-JD:24159] (3 of 5) [CW-13861/2015]
3.1 Furthermore, the respondents issued an order dated
20.10.2009 (Annex.R/2), whereby training was held. However,
since the petitioner did not acquire the requisite training by 2014,
she was granted fixed pay/pension as per relevant circulars. The
matter would have been different if the petitioner had acquired
the requisite qualification before the issuance of the retirement
order. Admittedly, she has not completed her training; therefore,
she is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Hence, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel
for the respective parties and have perused the material available
on record.
5. What transpires herein is twofold resistance by the
respondents regarding the non-release of the pensionary benefits
to the petitioner, though provisional pension is being paid to her.
Firstly, she was not eligible for the benefit of a regular pay scale
as she was deemed ineligible in view of the notification dated
24.01.1990.Relevant extract whereof, being apposite, is
reproduced herein below:-
"1. The existing female teachers appointed and continuing
in the districts of Dungarpur, Banswara, Jaisalmer and Barmer
who do not possess the requisite qualifications and are drawing
fixed pay of Rs.750/- per month under the Rajasthan Panchayat
Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (R.P.S.) Rules, 1987 shall get
revised fixed pay of Rs.950/- per month until they get trained or
complete 10 years of service, pay of such female teachers on
completion of 10 years service in the abovementioned districts
or on acquiring S.T.C. Certificate whichever is earlier, shall be
fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Teacher
grade III viz., 1200-2050. Arrears for the period from 1.9.88 to
31.12.88 will not be paid and arrears for the period from 1.1.89
to 31.3.89 will be deposited in P.F. Account."
[2024:RJ-JD:24159] (4 of 5) [CW-13861/2015]
6. Secondly, the petitioner's counterpart, Raj Kaur Ram Dev,
was given the same benefits pursuant to the judgment of the
Single Judge in SBCWP No.5930/2011, decided on 14.09.2012,
which was further appealed and dismissed.
7. Regarding the legality of the second argument, the Single
Bench judgment attained finality as the appeal filed against it was
dismissed. Raj Kaur Ram Dev was deemed eligible for the benefits,
rendering this reason for withholding the petitioner's pensionary
benefits moot.
8. Addressing the first ground for not according final pensionary
benefits, the notification envisages twofold eligibility: (i)
possession of a BSTC qualification, and (ii) for those without the
qualification, a minimum of 10 years of service.
9. Concededly, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service
and should be accorded a regular pay scale. Thus, there is no
factual dispute on this ground. Therefore, there is no valid reason
why the petitioner's pensionary benefits, including gratuity, have
not been released.
10. Although provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner,
the threat of withholding full benefits remains despite no legal
basis for it, merely due to the pending Division Bench appeal
regarding the counterpart, with whom the petitioner has no
connection.
11. In light of this, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to release all the pensionary benefits, including
gratuity, after making the necessary calculations.
12. Needless to say, since the petitioner is not responsible for
the delay, the dues shall be paid along with admissible interest as
[2024:RJ-JD:24159] (5 of 5) [CW-13861/2015]
per applicable service rules. The necessary actions should be
completed within three months from the date the petitioner
provides the respondents with a web-print copy of this order.
13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
106-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
