Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Vasudeo Pujari - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4542 of 1992
Decided On : January 10, 2003
Since the petitioner was re-employed, after retirement from Government service, therefore, if any recovery is made on the ground that pension should have been deducted, that order cannot be justified because of the simple reason that when the Board has decided that a consolidated sum of Rs. 1043/- per month be paid to the petitioner, that should have been paid to the petitioner because in the order Annex. 5 allowing a consolidated sum of Rs. 1043/- per month to the petitioner, there was no mention of any other benefit including deduction of amount of pension also which was being paid to the petitioner on his retirement from Government service. If a retired employee is re- employed on a consolidated salary, that salary should be paid to him. (Para 11)
On the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work, cannot be accepted as that principle cannot be made applicable in the case of retired employee when re-employed. It is made clear that a retired employee, on re-employment, stands on a different footing from a regular employee in respect of emoluments. (Para 17)
(2). The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-
The petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the service of the State of Rajasthan from where he retired on 31.3.1980 and he was paid 75% of his pension by way of provisional pension and this continued to be so till November, 1980.
It was further submitted by the petitioner that while he was working as Accounts Officer (on extension to assist Shri Ram Singh, Fact Finding Commission), a resolution was passed by the respondent No.2 Ganganagar Sahakari Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh (for short ``Spinning Mills) whereby it was resolved that the petitioner, who was then working in the Rajasthan Canal Project, be appointed as Accounts Officer and for that purpose, necessary sanction might be obtained from the State Government. A copy of the said Resolution dated 12.3.1980 is marked of Annex. 1.
Although the petitioner retired on 31.3.1980, he did not join the office of the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills and again in pursuance of the above Resolution, a letter dated 4/5.04.1980 (Annex. 2) was issued to the petitioner, whereby he was informed that appointment of the petitioner on the last pay drawn by him minus pension has been approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills and he was advised to join duties at the earliest and for that purpose, he was also required to complete certain formalities as contained in that letter.
The petitioner did not join in pursuance of that letter Annex. 2 as terms were not settled by the State Government and, therefore, the Managing Director and, therefore, the Managing Director of the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills vide his letter dated 30.4.1980 (Annex. 3) requested the Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) that the sanction of the Government was awaited and the work of the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills was suffering and, therefore, permission might to granted to the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills to take the petitioner on duty in anticipation of the sanction of the Government and in response to the said letter Annex. 3, the Dy. Registrar vide letter dated 21.5.1980 (Annex. 4) informed the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills that the matter of appointment of the petitioner in the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills was under consideration of the State Government and till the orders from the State Government are received, permission was granted to appoint the petitioner. It was also mentioned in that letter that the terms of appointment which will be decided by the State Government, would be made applicable to the petitioner.
It may be stated here that in pursuance of the above assurance, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent No.2 Spinning Mills on 24.6.1980.
Thereafter, the Managing Director of respondent No.2 Spinning Mills passed another order on 31.7.1981 by which in pursuance of the Resolution of the Board dated 30.6.1981, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1043/- per month and a copy of the said order dated 31.7.1981 is marked as Annex. 5.
The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, through Resolution Annex. 6 dated 5.10.1981, it was decided that pay of the petitioner should be determined after taking into consideration the last salary (total emoluments) drawn by him at the time of retirement minus the amount of pension paid to him and, thereaf
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
