Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 902
[Citation : 2012(1) RLW 485 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Tribhuvan Vallabh Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Tribhuvan Vallabh Joshi
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 877 of 2007, decided on 06.09.2011
Vipul Singhvi, for Petitioner;
R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Government Counsel Hemant Choudhary
Headnote:Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951,Rule 86(3), 244(1); Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 50; Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, Rule 16 — Grant of retiral benefits treating petitioner voluntarily retired from service — Initially appointed as teacher Gr. III on 15.9.66 — Continued in service upto 15.4.1988 — Thereafter due to diseases 'paranoidee schizophrenia' and 'residual polio' took leave — Sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 17.4.88 and again w.e.f. 16.11.2000 — No action was taken — Filed writ petition — Pursuant to the direction of the Court made representation — Rejected with the observation petition himself abandoned the services so no retiral benefits is admissible — Held — No enquiry u/R. 16 of the CCA Rules was conducted for willful absence for terminating his services as contemplated in Rule 86(3) of R.S.R. which is pre-requisite condition which is mandatory — Completed 22 years qualifying service as on 17.4.88 — As per Rule 244(1) RSR and Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, the qualifying service for seeking voluntary retirement was/is 20 years and 15 years respectively — Denial of request was totally against the principles of natural justice — Quashed and set aside the impugned order — Declared voluntarily retired w.e.f. 16.11.2000 — Entitled to retiral benefits.
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 19 to 23)
jktLFkku lsok fu;e] 1951] fu;e 86¼3½] 244¼1½( jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e] 1996] fu;e 50( jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼lh-lh-,-½ fu;e] 1958] fu;e 16 & izkFkhZ dks lsok ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`r gqvk eku dj isa'ku ifjykHk nsuk & vkjEHk esa 15-9-66 dks f'k{kd xzsM III ds :i esa fu;qDr gqvk & 15-4-88 rd lsok esa jgk rRi'pkr~ ^^iSjk ukWbMh fltksQzsfu;k** rFkk ^^jsflMqvy iksfy;ks** uked chekfj;ksa ds dkj.k vodk'k fy;k & 17-4-88 o fQj 16-11-2000 ls LosfPNd lsok fuo`fr pkgh & dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZ & ;kfpdk nk;j gqbZ & U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa vH;kosnu fd;k & bl lEizs"k.k ds lkFk fujLr fd;k fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a gh ukSdjh dk R;kx fd;k vr% dksbZ lsokfuo`fr ifjykHk ns; ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & LoSfPNd vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k lsok ls c[kkZLr djus ds fy, vkj-,l-vkj- ds fu;e 86¼3½ esa ;Fkk vuq/;kr~ gS ds vuqlkj lh-lh-,- :Yl ds fu;e 16 ds rgr dksbZ tkap ugha dh xbZ tks fd ,d iwoZ 'krZ gS rFkk vkKkid Hkh gS & 22 o"kZ dh vgZad lsok iw.kZ dh & vkj-,l-vkj- ds fu;e 244¼1½ rFkk isa'ku :Yl ds fu;e 50 ds vuqlkj LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr pkgus gsrq vgZad lsok Øe'k% 20 o"kZ o 15 o"kZ Fkh@gS & izkFkZuk dks vLohdkj djuk iw.kZr% uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds fo:) gS &vk{ksfir vkns'k vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;k & fnukad 16-11-2000 ls LoSfPNd :i ls lsokfuo`r gksuk ?kksf"kr fd;k & lsokfuo`fr ifjykHk ikus dk ik= gSA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 19 ls 23½
2. According to facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department as Teacher Gr.III on 15.9.1966 and his services were confirmed on the said post with effect from 9.8.1967 vide order dated 25.5.1972. The petitioner uninterruptedly continued in service of the respondents up to 15.4.1988; and , thereafter, due to disease 'paranoidee schizophrenia' the petitioner took leave and discontinued to attend office and submitted an application for sanctioning medical leave because the petitioner was not able to discharge his duties due to ill-health.
3. The petitioner further submits that he wrote a letter on 1.7.1988 to the respondents that due to ailment he may be retired from service and service benefits may be granted as he has completed the qualifying service. Again, on 17.8.1988, an application was filed by the petitioner for the same prayed and petitioner has placed on record letter dated 1.7.1988 along with U.P.C. receipt as Annex.2 and 2A. Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he has not only suffered aforesaid disease but also suffered from residual polio in right lower limb, therefore, he was feeling weakness and difficulty in walking and cycling. As such the petitioner submitted medical bills and treatment slips for the perusal of the Court.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he has repeatedly filed applications on 1.12.1992 and, then, on 4.12.1992 under registered AD which he has placed on record as Annex.6; but, his prayer for voluntary retirement was not accepted by the respondents. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his demand of acceptance of his voluntary retirement from service, ultimately, the petitioner sent an application under provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules and prayed that his prayer for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 16.8.2000 may be accepted within a period of three months. Although the said application was sent through registered AD post, but no action was taken with regard to declaring the petitioner voluntarily retired from service either from 1.7.1988 or from the date of application subsequently filed on 16.8.2000.
5. Submission of the petitioner in the writ petition is that regularly he made prayer for medical leave after 16.4.1988 but the respondents did not intimate the petitioner about refusal of his medical leave, therefore, in the compelling circumstances the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 396/2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2003 (Annex.8).
6. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file application and apprise the res-pondents that he has completed 20 years of qualifying service, therefore, he is entitled to some retrial benefits. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed in the judgment that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority, the concerned authority is requested to consider the same is accordance with law and make the payment if any, accordingly.
7. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 6.2.2003, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court and the said appeal was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 272/2003 which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.5.2006. The Division Bench of this Court although dismissed the appeal but observed in the judgment that the petitioner's eligibility to claim retrial benefits on having left the job after 22 years of service is left to be determined by the responden
