Pension benefits cannot be denied based on alleged service disruption unless expressly stated; periods of suspension should not be counted against eligibility.

Judgment :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 22.10.2019, whereby the order qua payment of pension was cancelled for the reason that period of services rendered by the petitioner is less than 10 years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Conductor in the Year 1985 and regularized in the Year 1986.

3. It is further submitted that on account of allegations qua negligence whilst rendering services, respondents terminated the petitioner from the services in the Year 1999. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the said termination order before the learned Labour Court-1, Jaipur, wherein, learned Labour Court by virtue of order dated 24.09.2015 substituted the termination with compulsory retirement along with all due benefits (Annexue-6).

4. Consequently, the said order passed by learned Labour Court was challenged by the respondents before the High Court, wherein, High Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2016 in SBCWP No. 9558/2016 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. RSRTC and Ors., dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision passed by learned Labour Court.

5. Additionally, it is submitted that respondents in an apparent attempt to further demean and humiliate the impecunious employee, approached Division Bench assailing the above stated order, which ultimately dismissed their appeal vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 in DBSAW No. 585/2017 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. Sharvan Lal, thereby upholding the original order and compounding the respondents dissatisfaction.

6. Thereafter, respondents persistent in their efforts to overturn the adverse decision, assailed the Division Bench’ judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereby, Hon’ble Apex Court declined to intervene, thereby dismissing their Special Leave Petition No.25071/2018 titled as Deputy General Manager vs. Sharvan Lal vide order dated 06.08.2018.

7. Furthermore, it is submitted that respondents in compliance of the above stated orders, passed an order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-12), to release all the pensionary benefits qua the petitioner, however, despite the said sanction department did not release any pensionary benefits for a long time, and instead passed an impugned order withdrawing the benefits due to the petitioner.

8. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed approximately 13 years of service with the respondent department since the date of appointment till the date of compulsory retirement. In support of same reliance is placed upon Annexure-13.

9. The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has called for an explanation qua the calculation of 10 year period and applicable rules qua the same. Pursuance to the same, vide Annexure/1(page 86), Shri Hemant Sharma, Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C, Baran has apprised, that the petitioner has worked for a period of 1840 days (1986-1999) i.e. approximately five years and the absented period is calculated as approximately 2922 days, implying that the tenure of service rendered by the petitioner is less than 10 years. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same is due to various suspensions made on various occasions qua the petitioner.

10. In this background, learned Senior Counsel Ms. Gayatri Rathore, has drawn attention of this Court on various rules of the RSRTC Employee Pension Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “Regulation of 1989”) applicable qua the employees of RSRTC, more particularly Rule 8, Rule 11, Rule 13, Rule 16, Rule 18 and allied provisions of “Regulation of 1989”, and submitted that once the Labour Court has passed an award with the categorical directions for granting benefits till the period of termination/compulsory retirement, and respondents have never, at that time, brought the said fact/argument on record qua period of services, therefore pensionary benefits should be granted to the petitioner from