Ramji Lal Kulhari S/o. Shri Chet Ram vs State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt. of Rajasthan Medical Health and Family Welfare Department

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ramji Lal Kulhari S/o. Shri Chet Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt. of Rajasthan Medical Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 85 of 2020, 2968, 2974, 3841, 3844, 3848, 3852, 4216, 4310, 4312, 4451, 4963, 4983, 5457, 5549, 6393, 6542, 6608, 6859, 6875, 9846, 9888, 11431, 14045, 14147, 14162, 16059, 16461, 16582, 16893, 16960, 17021, 18801, 18924, 18941, 18958 of 2019, 505, 580, 589, 617, 622, 637, 778, 1923, 2728, 6743, 7545, 12287, 12540, 12623, 12666 of 2020, 2614, 8976, 15502 and 15904 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jai Kumar Kaushik, S.S. Ladrecha, Shreyansh Mardia, Sushil Solanki, R.S. Choudhary, Kuldeep Mathur, Rakesh Kumar Saini, Pawan Singh, Vikas Balia, Kailash Jangid, Khet Singh Rajpurohit and Mukesh Rajpurohit.
For the Respondents: Sandeep Shah, AAG, Vandana Bhansali, Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Vishal Jangid for Hemant Choudhary, GC, Anjana Jawa, Himanshu Shrimali, Abhilasha Kumbhat, M.C. Bishnoi, L.K. Purohit, Ravi Panwar and K.K. Bissa.

Headnote:
Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 - Rule 13 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Rule 14 - Purpose of pensionary benefits - Arrears of pension - Consequential arrears - Grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits - notice for demand of justice - Petitioner was initially appointed on post of Vehicle Driver and posted in Prathmic Health Centre at His date of birth - Madras High Court was challenged and apex Court dismissed the said SLP preferred by Union of India and upheld order of Madras High Court - petitioners without compelling petitioners to approach court in the evening their life - Not having done official respondents have failed to adhere to policy of Government of being a welfare State and therefore, respondents are liable to pay cost of this litigation to petitioners which are quantified – Held, Petitioners refer to date as on which such increment would be released - For proper pay fixation and calculation of the re-fixed pay after releasing the annual increment, it is absolutely essential that the date as on which such increment is released, be specified - If it is to be released as on 30th June of year of retirement – Court do not see how this can result into any benefit to petitioners pension would be drawn on basis of last 10 months of salary and releasing notional increment on the last date of service would not augment salary in any manner - Court in a clear order has rested controversy to an end by holding that there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory about Rules in question - Finding given by Division Bench comprehensively covers the lis in all these writ petitions - Court is bound by Division Bench judgment Court - Writ petitions are dismissed.

ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, the lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is common, thus, are decided by a common order; Ramji Lal Kulhari being the lead case.

3. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum and substance, for the following reliefs:-

SBCWP No. 85/2020:

"To issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to grant one notional increment to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2019, on rendering 12 months service and re-fix his pension taking into account the same and revise all his pensionary benefits and make payments of the consequential arrears thereof, along with interest as per mandatory provisions for grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, under Rule 89 of RSR. Any adverse order, if passed, on the pending notice for demand of justice may also be quashed."

4. The factual matrix of case in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Vehicle Driver on 5.8.1996 and posted in Prathmic Health Centre at Bhansali (Rajgarh). His date of birth being 10.06.1959. The petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2019 vide order dated 28.6.2019.

5. The bone of contention is Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2008") and Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2017"). The petitioner is seeking implementation of retiral benefits as on 01.07.2019.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to order dated on 30.07.2021 passed by Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Arun Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha and Ors., reported in, relevant paras whereof are reads as follows:-

"13. In the above order of the Madras High Court, it was held that as the petitioner therein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service, though the date of increment fell due on the next date of his retirement, the petitioner would be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he had completed full one year of service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. The said order of the Madras High Court was challenged in SLP(C) Diary No(s). 22283 of 2018 and the apex Court dismissed the said SLP preferred by the Union of India and upheld the order of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra). Although a review petition was filed by the Union of India bearing R.P.(C) No.1731 of 2019, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2019. Thereby, the order of the Madras High Court has reached its finality by dismissal of the SLP as well as the review petition preferred by the Union of India.

14. Similarly, in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria, mentioned supra, Madhya Pradesh High Court, by applying the ratio decided in P. Ayyamperumal (supra), directed as follows:-

"(i) The official respondents are directed to release the increment due to the appellants w.e.f. 01.07.2014, 01.07.2010, 01.07.2013, 01.07.2012, 01.07.2015 and 01.07.2015 respectively.

(ii) The pension be refixed after adding the grant of aforesaid increment and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners.

(iii) The petitioners are entitled to interest over the aforesaid arrears of pension @ 10% p.a. from the date the arrears became due till their payment.

(iv) Despite the rule position having been explained by the Division Bench of Madras High Court on 15.09.2017 against which Supreme Court declined to entertain the SLP of the employer on 23.07.2018, the official respondents ought to have offered the benefit of one increment to the petitioners without compelling the petitioners to approach the court in the evening of 10 WA 645-2020 their life. Not having done so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Raj) 307

Cases Referred (1)