1. - Petitioner Sukh Ram Jatav, a retired Officer of the Rajasthan Judicial Services, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is prang for a direction to the respondent State of Rajasthan to grant sanction and make payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him, within a period of 30 days from the date of decision of the writ petition.

2. The State of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 9th of November, 2000, ordered for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Government services in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Old)/Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996.

3. On 11th of October, 2001 the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, with a request to issue sanction of payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him.

4. The Registrar General of this Court on 8th of March, 2003 issued necessary sanction for payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him.

5. On 3rd of May, 2002, the Sub-Treasury, Keshoraipatan, returned the bill with the remarks that such payment is not admissible to those employees who stood compulsorily retired prior to 20th of August, 2001. This was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent no.3.

6. On 8th of July, 2002 the Registrar General of this Court referred the matter of the petitioner to the respondent State Government for clarification and early necessary action. The State of Rajasthan did not take cognizance of this letter of the Registrar General of this Court. The petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice on 26th of June, 2003 through his Advocate, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, in the matter but, as usual what it is done by the State Government, it is not attended.

7. The petitioner may be correct in his statement that his notice for demand of justice has been thrown in the waste paper basket. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option except to approach this Court and that is how he is before us.

8. The respondent State of Rajasthan has not cared, bothered and concerned to file reply to the writ petition; that is also the position remained with the respondent no.4, though he received the notice of the writ petition on 28th of October, 2003. Thus, the averments made in the writ petition stand un-controverted on their behalf.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition and its enclosures.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Deen Dayal Khunteta v. The State of Rajasthan & Another, 1995(1) RLR 50 = 1995(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 22 , has considered the identical issue and negating this very contention of the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan held that if Rule 91(B) provides for cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave due on the date of retirement to the employee covered under Rule 244(1) then why should it be denied to those employees who retired under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules aforesaid.

11. The difference in between sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of the Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951 is that under sub-rule (1) the Government servant exercises his own option of retirement on completion of qualifying service as provided therein or on attaining the age prescribed whereas under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951 the compulsory retirement is ordered by the appointing authority after completion of qualifying service or on attaining the age as prescribed therein on the ground that he has lost his efficiency and his retention in the services become practically useless.

12. There cannot be two views and it is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan that the order of compulsory retirement under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules aforesaid, is not a