Minimum qualifying service of ten years is necessary for pension eligibility, and previous judgments establishing non-eligibility cannot be relitigated, even with changes in rules.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. The petitioner, a former Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, was compulsorily retired from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge on 13.07.2004, after six years of service, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant him pension with effect from the date of his retirement along with interest. He further seeks directions to count his ten years’ practice as an Advocate prior to joining judicial service towards qualifying service, so that his total service of 10 years (advocacy) + 6 years (judicial service) may be treated as continuous qualifying service for pension.

2. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-8) as well as the communication dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure-7C), , whereby his claim for pension was rejected.

3. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies upon the order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure-7A) issued by Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan read with Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. More of it later, in the succeeding part of this order.

4. Facts first. Briefly stated, shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1976. Pursuant to a selection process for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, he applied and was selected along with ten other candidates. On the recommendation of the Rajasthan High Court, he was appointed as Additional District Judge on probation for two years vide an order dated 20.04.1998.

4.1. On successful completion of probation, the petitioner was confirmed on the post with effect from 02.08.2000. In view of his satisfactory performance, the petitioner was assigned the cadre of District & Sessions Judge vide an order dated 30.08.2002 and posted as Special Judge, Sessions Court, ACD Cases, Kota.

4.2. During the said posting, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 31.05.2003 on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Shri Inder Singh Mandloi.

4.3. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), which culminated in initiation of departmental proceedings. A memorandum dated 26.06.2003 was issued alleging that while functioning as Special Judge, Kota, the petitioner had acquitted an accused in Sessions Case No. 37/2001 (State v. Anandi Lal Mathur) with an oblique motive after allegedly accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 15 lakhs. The petitioner denied the allegations in his reply dated 21.08.2003, asserting that the judgment was passed on appreciation of evidence and law.

4.4. While the first inquiry was pending, a second memorandum dated 10.03.2004 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 was issued, alleging irregular grant of bail in another criminal case. However, both departmental proceedings were later dropped by the Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan. Consequently, vide an order dated 12.07.2004, the petitioner’s suspension was revoked and he was directed to await posting orders at Kota.

4.5. However, almost simultaneously (a day later), vide an order dated 13.07.2004 the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. He received a letter dated 14.07.2004 along with a bank draft of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, informing him of his compulsory retirement.

4.6.. Aggrieved by th