SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15025

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
SHASHIKALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 151 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:23217]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 151/2026

Shashikala W/o Shri Moolshanker, Aged About 60 Years, R/o

Bissapada, Asani Road, Jaisalmer, Retired Third Grade Teacher,

Level-1, Senior Secondary School, Damodara, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Pension And

Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

2. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare

Department, Jodhpur.

3. The Director (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. The Joint Director (Secondary Education), Jodhpur

Division, Jodhpur.

5. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),

Jaisalmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta

Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

14/05/2026

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:

“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition

of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by way of

writ, order or direction;

(i) The respondents may be directed to release the half of

the gratuity as withheld by department as well as

commutation payment in favor of the petitioner.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 04:40:19 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 01:16:45 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:23217] (2 of 4) [CW-151/2026]

(ii) During pendency of writ petition or till today the

amount due with the respondents may be paid with the

interest @ 12% from first September, 2025 and

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit

and proper may be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner, after serving in the respondent department on the post

of Teacher Grade-III for more than 37 years, stood retired from

the service with effect from 31.08.2025. The grievance of the

petitioner is that till date, the respondents have neither finalized

her pension case nor released 50% of the gratuity amount, on the

ground that the entire service record of the petitioner is

missing/not available with the department.

3. The stand taken in the reply filed on behalf of the

respondents is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a

Teacher by the Panchayat Samiti, Jaisalmer vide order dated

05.09.1988 (Annexure-2). However, her services were terminated

with effect from 31.07.1991.

4. As per the respondents, the petitioner was subsequently

reinstated in service in the year 1991 pursuant to directions

issued by this Court in favour of the petitioner and other similarly

situated teachers and, therefore, unless and until the record

pertaining to the petitioner’s initial appointment as a Teacher by

the Panchayati Raj Department is made available, her final

pension case cannot be processed. It was also contended on

behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is presently receiving

provisional pension and, therefore, until the entire service record

becomes available, no direction for finalization of pension and

release of the remaining gratuity amount should be issued by this

Court.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 04:40:19 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 01:16:45 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:23217] (3 of 4) [CW-151/2026]

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that no

valid reason or justification exists with the respondents for not

finalizing the pension case of the petitioner. It is the duty of the

respondent department to maintain the service record of the

petitioner and, if required, to collect the same from the concerned

Panchayat Samiti for the purpose of finalizing her pension case. An

employee cannot be denied pensionary benefits after rendering

more than thirty years of service on wholly unreasonable and

untenable grounds. Pension is not a bounty to be distributed by

the employer at its discretion; rather, it is a valuable right accrued

to an employee after rendering long years of service. Pension

cannot be withheld or denied in the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top