JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the respondents to release the pension of the petitioner along with interest as well as to quash and set aside the communications dated 8.10.2021 and 20.10.2021 holding them to be unwarranted.

2. The facts in brief are that despite petitioner's retirement from the post of Lecturer (Pate Vetan) in Sanskrit Education w.e.f. 31.10.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation, he has not been paid pension. Vide communications impugned dated 8.10.2021 and 20.10.2021, he has been asked to apply for leave for the period from 4.5.2017 to 3.10.2017 to enable him to get the pension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2017, the petitioner was promoted under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education State and Subordinate Service (School Branch) Rules, 2015 and was directed to join at the new place of posting with warning that in case of failure to join, selection scale would be suspended and action would be taken under point no. 18 under memorandum of Finance dated 31.12.2009. He submitted that the aforesaid action was challenged by him by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6504/2017 wherein, vide interim order dated 4.5.2017, status quo was directed to be maintained. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner was not allowed to join and no salary for the period from 4.5.2017 to 3.10.2017 was paid to him, he moved an interim application no. 37432/2017 whereupon, this Court has, vide its order dated 13.9.2017, directed the State-respondents to release monthly salary as per schedule. He, on the strength of aforesaid orders, submitted that he is not required to apply for grant of leave for the period from 4.5.2017 to 3.10.2017 and hence, the respondents may be directed to release his pension with interest without requiring him to seek leave for the aforesaid period.

4. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act of 1976’). He relied upon the following judgments to buttress his submission:

(1) T.K. Rangarajan vs. Government of T.N. and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 581

(2) Har Devi Asnani vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 160

(3) Ramraj Gurjar vs. RSRTC and Others, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 485

(4) Sumati Nath Jain vs. State of U.P. and Others, MANU/UP/0099/2016

5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The Act of 1976 provides as under:

“2.(c) “Government Servant” means a person who is or has been a member of a Civil Service or who holds or has held a Civil post under the Government of Rajasthan and includes any such person on foreign Service or whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a local or other authority and also any person in the service of a local or other authority whose services have been temporarily placed at the disposal of the State Government or a person in service on a contract or a person who has retired from the Government service elsewhere and is re-employed under the Government of Rajasthan, but does not include a person in the Civil Service of the Indian Union or a State Government serving on deputation in Rajasthan who will continue to be governed by the rules applicable to such person.

(d) xxx xxx xxx

(e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) “Service matter” means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant:

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) xxx xxx xxx

(iii) xxx xxx xxx

(iv) xxx xxx xxx

(v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty.

(vi) xxx xxx xxx

(vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty.”

6. The aforesaid provisions leave no room for doubt that the petitioner has got a statutory alternative and efficacious remedy before the learned Tribuna