[2026:RJ-JP:2478]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16977/2011 Smt. Shail Bhardwaj, wife of Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, aged about

61 years, resident of 2/273, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Primary/Elementary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. District Education Officer, Primary/Elementary Education, Jaipur.

4. Director, Pension Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC Ms. Priyansha Barwar for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC for respondent No.4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

20/01/2026

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking direction against the respondents to sanction and release pensionary benefits as well as benefit of GPF and State Insurance etc. along with interest.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Women Supervisor in Social Welfare Department on 12.11.1983 and was subsequently absorbed in Education Department on 22.11.1984.

3. On account of medical issues, as the petitioner was continuously not keeping good health, she submitted an application for granting her voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Learned counsel submits that the voluntary retirement was sanctioned vide order dated 29.12.2001 w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Pursuant to order dated 29.12.2001, the petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 01.01.2002. However, for no justified reasons benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits including the amount payable under the head of GPF and State Insurance was not sanctioned and released to the petitioner; and an unfounded objection was raised that prior to grant of voluntary retirement, the petitioner did not complete the qualifying service prescribed for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits. Learned counsel submits that during service, on account of medical reasons the petitioner applied for leaves from time to time and such leaves were also sanctioned by the respondents, and therefore, leaves sanctioned by the respondent-Government deserves to be calculated towards the qualifying service.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise, it was legal and bounden duty of the authority sanctioning voluntary retirement to ascertain as to whether an incumbent has completed period of qualifying service for the purpose of pension or not, and only thereafter voluntary retirement is granted. He submits that as per Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, voluntary retirement can be granted only to those employees who have rendered qualifying services for pension and on grant of voluntary retirement, he/she becomes legally entitled for pension and other benefits.

5. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, as regards benefits under the head of GPF and State Insurance are concerned, they have been paid to the petitioner but the other benefits that is pension gratuity etc. has not been granted to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition submitted that for the purpose of showing entitlement for pension gratuity and other benefits, the employee is required to show that she has rendered qualifying services under the Rules so as to make her entitled for pension. In the instant case, the petitioner remained on leave from 13.09.1993 to 18.05.1998 and 1.07.1998 to 19.02.1999 for which extra ordinary leave was granted to the petitioner and such leave cannot be counted towards the qualifying service. Hence, under these circumstances, where the petitioner failed to fulfil the basic requirement of completing qualifying services, her claim for pension and gratuity is totally contrary to the scheme of Rules of 1996 and the writ