Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanta vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:8552-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 169/2022
Shanta D/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 67 Years, Nawrang Dry
Cleaners Ke Samne, Jatabas Ka Nukkad, Inside Sojati Gate,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Mr. Sandeep Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
12/02/2025
1. This instant special appeal has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal of the
appellant may kindly be allowed and;
a. the records of the case may kindly be called;
b. The respondents may kindly be directed to
release full pension and other retiral benefits in favour
of the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum;
c. The judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in S.B. C.W. Petition
No.18506/2019 - Shanta V/s State of Raj. & Ors.,
may kindly be quashed and set-aside;
[2025:RJ-JD:8552-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-169/2022]
d. That the cost of litigation may also be awarded to
the appellant and;
e. Any other appropriate order, direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed
in favour of the appellant/appellant."
2. Mr. Dhirendra Sodha, learned counsel for the appellant
makes a limited submissions regarding the concluding part of the
judgment, which reads as follows:-
"Viewed from all angles, it can be safely concluded
that the order dated 08.11.2019 was passed by the
disciplinary authority in excess of jurisdiction which
deserves to be and is quashed and set aside.
However, it would be open for the respondent -
Department to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner after following the complete
procedure of law and after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the petitioner would be entitled to the
provisional pension as she was being granted prior to
the passing of the order dated 08.11.2019.
With these observations, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
All pending applications also stand disposed of."
2.1. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned Single Judge
of this Court had arrived at a considered conclusion that the order
dated 08.11.2019 passed by the disciplinary authority in excess of
jurisdiction has been quashed and set-aside. He further submits
that although liberty was granted for fresh disciplinary
proceedings, no such liberty has been exercised in the last three
years since the judgment was passed. He further submits that the
provision for provisional pension is contained in Rule 90 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules of 1996').
3. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to
demonstrate any legal provision beyond Rule 90 of the Rules of
[2025:RJ-JD:8552-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-169/2022]
1996, which provides for provisional pension in ongoing
proceedings only.
4. This Court after hearing the limited submissions is of the
opinion that Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, clearly provides for
provisional pension only in case of ongoing proceedings; Rule 90
of the Rules of 1996, reads as follows:-
"90. Provisional pension where departmental or
judicial proceedings may be pending
(1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred
to in sub rule (4) of Rule 7, the Director, Pension
Department, Rajasthan, shall authorise the
provisional pension equal to the maximum pension
which would have been admissible on the basis of
qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the
Government servant, or if he was under suspension
on the date of retirement upto the date immediately
preceding the date on which he was placed under
suspension.
Provided that in cases where pension case could not
be prepared finally for one or the other reason the
appointing authority shall sanction provisional pension
in Form 33 after following procedure laid down in sub-
rule (3) of Rule 86 and send the case to the Director,
Pension for issue of Provisional Pension Payment
Order till the Departmental Enquiry is finalised.
(b) The provisional pension shall be authorised by the
Director, Pension Department, during the period
commencing from the date of retirement upto and
including the date on which, after the conclusion of
departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are
passed by the competent authority.
(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government
servant until the conclusion of the departmental or
judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:
Provided that where departmental proceedings have
been instituted under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
for imposing any of the penalties specified in
clauses(i) and (ii) of Rule 14 of the said Rules, the
payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to
the Government servant.
[2025:RJ-JD:8552-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-169/2022]
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-
rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement
benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon
conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall
be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less
than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced
or withheld either permanently or for a specified
period."
4.1 This Court observes that learned Single Judge of this Court
has already quashed the disciplinary authority's order dated
08.11.2019, and as per the stand of the counsel for the
respondents, they could not show any ongoing proceedings, and
thus, in conjoint reading of the directions passed by the learned
Single Judge, as well as Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, the present
appeal is disposed of while directing the respondents to give
proper regular pension to the appellant. If any case under Rule 90
of the Rules of 1996 further arises, it shall be open for the
respondents to pass fresh orders, in regard to the issue of
provisional pension, strictly in accordance with law.
5. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
75-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
