Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Alka Mathur - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through, Principal Secretary - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 11864 of 2017
Decided On : 30-08-2019
PENSION - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE - RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES, 1951 - RULE 16 - INTERPRETATION - PENSION BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT - DATE OF REGULARIZATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - NO ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION BENEFITS FOR PAST SERVICES PRIOR TO REGULARIZATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was initially appointed on a daily rate basis. Her services were terminated, leading to a labor court dispute. The labor court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service. The petitioner then sought regularization of her services, which was granted from the date of issuance of the regularization order (07/12/2005) instead of treating it as a fresh appointment. The petitioner claimed pension and reimbursement of medical bills for her past services.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pension benefits for her past services prior to regularization. The court relied on its previous orders in the case, which clarified that the petitioner's regularization from 07/12/2005 entitled her to benefits only from that date. The court also noted that the law, as established by Supreme Court precedents, provides for pension and other benefits to accrue only from the date of regularization.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension benefits for her past services prior to regularization? 2. From what date are the petitioner's pension and other benefits entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which governs pension benefits, and held that pension benefits accrue only from the date of regularization. 2. The court relied on its previous orders in the case, which clarified that the petitioner's regularization from 07/12/2005 entitled her to benefits only from that date. 3. The court also noted that the law, as established by Supreme Court precedents, provides for pension and other benefits to accrue only from the date of regularization.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that she was not entitled to pension benefits for her past services prior to regularization.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Call for the entire record of the case and examine the same;
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby direct the respondents to consider the past services of petitioner for the purpose of pension and reimbursement of the medical bills, and consider the entire service of the petitioner for this purpose from 07.03.1991, the order dated 09/03/2017 be quashed;
(iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby direct the respondents to reimburse the pending medical bills of the petitioner;
(v) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs be awarded."
2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer against substantive post on temporary basis w.e.f. 07/03/1991. Upon claiming regular pay-scale and allowances, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 16/02/1994. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute whereupon an award was passed by the Labour Court on 29/11/2001 and the Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. The award was challenged by the respondent-employer by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.426/2002 before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur which was dismissed vide order dated 03/08/2002 by laying down that the petitioner was entitled to the relief as claimed. The petitioner was reinstated on 28/11/2002 and was granted Rs.125/- per day without giving her benefits of continuity of service from 1991. The petitioner filed a contempt petition but the same was dismissed. The petitioner again filed a writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.2593/2003, for regular pay-scale and to be treated as regularly appointed Junior Engineer which was allowed on 25/08/2005 whereby the respondents were directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Junior Engineer while giving her age relaxation if it comes in the way. The respondents screened the petitioner and passed an order on 07/12/2005 treating her as a fresh appointee. The petitioner again challenged the said order by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.8106/2006 which was disposed of on 11/10/2011 whereby the respondents were directed that they ought not to have passed order of fresh appointment but should have regularized services of the petitioner, may be not from the retrospective date. The petitioner's fresh appointment was modified to the extent that the order of fresh appointment was to be treated as regularization and the petitioner's services on the post of of Junior Engineer were regularized from the date of issuance of the order dated 07/12/2005 in-stead of treating it to be a case of fresh appointment. The petitioner gave representation seeking all other benefits such as; seeking pension and reimbursement of medical bills etc. which was rejected by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 11/10/2011 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8106/2006 which reads as under:-
"I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. It is not disputed by both the parties that initial appointment of the petitioner was on daily rate basis. The services of the petitioner were terminated which then became subject matter of dispute and reference before the labour court. The labour court, vide its award, not only declared termination to be illegal but has granted benefit of continuity of service to the petitioner. Obvious consequence of the award is to treat petitioner in service without break but then his status would not change by virtue of aforesaid direction.
In the second round of litigation, petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
