Point of Law: Rule 33 of Pension Rules states as pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2016 (Annexure-9) whereby the request of the petitioner for counting her past services for the purposes of conferment of selection grade, seniority, promotion and pension has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 12.9.1995 as a lecturer with Shri Pareek Varisth Upadhyay Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Nagaur which was an Institution receiving aid from the Government. She was confirmed on the said post on 11.9.1996 and continued to work with the said institute for a period of almost 12 years. In the year 2007, she was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in pursuance to direct recruitment on the post of Head Master and was afforded appointment with effect from 24.07.2007. After completion of two years’ probation period, she was fixed in the pay scale of 9300—34800 with a grade pay of Rs.4200 /-with effect from 30.7.2007.

3. In the year 2010, a scheme for absorption of the employees working with the Non-Governmental Educational Institutes in the government services was introduced and the rules governing their terms and conditions of service were framed with the nomenclature as “Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'). The said Rules were framed specifically for regulating the appointment and other service conditions of the persons appointed in terms of the said Rules. In terms of the said Rules, the employees working with the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutes were given an option to be appointed under the said Rules of 2010 and were granted appointment on the terms and conditions as prescribed under the said Rules. Rule 5 (iv) of the rules of 2010 provided that the employees appointed in terms of the said rules would be allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme as allowed to other employees of State Government. The rule further provided that the period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme. This condition in the Rules of 2010 is the one on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming parity and therefore, moved representation dated 27.07.2016 with a prayer that her services with the previous aided institute be counted for the purposes of financial upgradations as well as other service benefits. It was also prayed that she be granted the protection of pay with effect from her date of selection in the government services as she ought to have been fixed on the pay scale equivalent to the last pay she was receiving prior to her present appointment. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 24.8.2016 on the premise that she had been appointed in pursuance to the direct recruitment in the year 2007 and therefore the Rules of 2010 would not be applicable on her. It is the said rejection that is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Manoj Bhandari appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working on a sanctioned and regular post in an institute receiving the aid by the Government and therefore was entitled to be treated equivalent to the employees absorbed with the Government in terms of Rules of 2010. Vide the Rules of 2010, all those employees who were equivalent to her have been granted the benefit of the years of service put in by them in the aided institute and therefore she is also entitled to the said benefit in parity. Counsel further submitted that although the petitioner stands on the same footing, her past services are not been counted for the purposes of grant of Assured Career Progression whereas, the employees absorbed in terms of Rules of 2010 are