BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE facts are frugal and the issue not very complex but is of a vital importance to the petitioner who is struggling long for his retiral benefits since his retirement from service after rendering almost 38 years of service, of which until 1962, to be precise 16. 11. 1962 with the State Government and, thereafter, w. e. f. 17. 11. 1962 with the University of Jodhpur, now named as Jai Narayan Vyas University. The claim of the petitioner in the petition is to secure the pensionary benefits for the period for which the petitioner has served the State Government, that is to say, from 18. 08. 1941 to 16. 11. 1962. The service chronologer of the petitioner shows, about which there is no dispute, that on 18. 08. 1941, he was appointed as L. D. C. in the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. On formation of State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was shifted to Jaipur in 1948. There he was promoted and has been appointed as U. D. C. in 1956 in the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur. In 1960, he was transferred to the Directorate of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. While the petitioner was working at the Directorate of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur University was inaugurated in 1962 and in the infancy of its formative years, services of experienced persons were required by the University. Knowing about existing vacancy of U. D. C. in the University of Jodhpur, the petitioner made an application through proper channel, namely, the Director of Technical Education, Jodhpur (the Head of the Department under which he was working) to the University of Jodhpur for seeking appointment as U. D. C. While forwarding the application of the petitioner, the Director, Technical Education Jodhpur made a positive endorsement No. F. 2 (15)DTE/e/20820 on 22. 10. 1961 as under: " Forwarded to the Special Officer, University of Jodhpur for favourable consideration. The appellant is efficient, hard working and reliable and capable to hold responsible post. " As a consequence of this, the petitioner was offered appointment by the University of Jodhpur in November, 1962. The petitioner forwarded a letter of his resignation to the Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur to enable him to take new appointment in the following terms: " I am most grateful to you for forwarding my application dated 21. 10. 1962 to the Special Officer, University of Jodhpur vide your endorsement No. F. 2 (15)DTE/e/20820 dated 22. 10. 1962, as a consequence of which I have been offered a post of U. D. C. I, therefore, request you kindly to accept my resignation with immediate effect and waive the period of notice so that I may join the University as early as possible. For this act of kindness, I shall be most grateful. " The aforesaid two documents have emerged from the record of the University of Jodhpur which was produced by the learned counsel of the University of Jodhpur in pursuance of direction of this Court vide order dated 15. 09. 2000, during the course of hearing. According to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of the petitioner himself, the amount payable to the petitioner as retiral benefits as the member of the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the petitioner was paid those retiral benefits. As the petitioner was a member of the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of erstwhile State of Jodhpur, and his services came to an end after 1. 04. 1951 though he was not entitled to any pensionary benefit when his services came to an end with effect from 17. 11. 1962, when he joined the services of the University of Jodhpur. However for the employees of erstwhile State of Marwar, who had retired from the State Service after 1. 4. 51, the State Government invited such employees to opt for pension, if not already opted, vide memorandum dated 17. 10. 1987.
(3.) THE petitioner laid his claim of pension in pursuance of a memorandum dated 17. 10. 1987 issued by the State of Rajasthan giving an option to the ex-employees of the State of Rajasthan, who retired after 1. 04. 1951, the date on which the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 came into force from the post under the Government availing themselves retirement benefits available under the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Rules to opt for pension rules as existing in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 on the date of their respective retirement. In pursuance of this memorandum issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 17. 10. 1987 (Annx. 1), the petitioner gave his option and claimed for fixation of his pension. THE pension case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur on 15. 12. 87, recommending his case for pension. A letter was again addressed by the Assistant Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur on 30. 06. 1988 to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for approving the pension case of the petitioner. However, by communication dated 1. 09. 1988, the Assistant Director Technical Education informed the petitioner that the Director of Pension, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his letter dated 19. 08. 1988, has informed that because the petitioner has resigned from the service, he is not entitled to pension. Vide letter dated 21. 09. 1988 addressed to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioner raised objection to the denial of his pensionary benefits pointing out that his retiral benefits otherwise due on retirement including gratuity and bonus etc. alongwith balance outstanding to him under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme were already paid to him and requested the Director to reconsider his case for release of pension. THE petitioner made representations again on 9. 01. 1989 and 11. 03. 1990. No response was made. Ultimately on 15. 05. 1994, the petitio-ner sent a notice for demand of justice to the State of Rajasthan through the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur; Director of Pensions, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Registrar, J. N. Vyas University, Jodhpur for giving him the pensionary benefits for the period of service rendered by him under the State Government from 18. 08. 1941 to 16. 11. 1962. On failure to get any response from the first of the three addressees, the petitioner has filed this petition. THE University of Jodhpur, vide its letter dated 27. 07. 1994, made it clear that so far as the Jodhpur University is concerned, it is not concerned with the pension case of the petitioner as it relates to grant of pension from the Government of Rajasthan for the services rendered by the petitioner with the State of Rajasthan before joining of the service of Jodhpur University. The petitioner has contended that pension is not a bounty but is given as a security for the dignified living after superannuation or retirement in consideration of the services rendered to the employer for a period. It also forms the necessary stem for the sustenance of the retired employee and becomes necessary part of his livelihood and denial of such a pension on unjust or erroneous ground is not only arbitrary and violative of Article 14 but is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. P. K. Lohra, learned counsel for the respondents-The State of Rajasthan and its other Departments, has contested the claim of the petitioner on two fold grounds. On merit it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that since the petitioner has not been superannuated from the service on completion of the age of retirement but has left the service by tendering resignation, under rule 208 (a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, his past services are forfeited and he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits or retiral benefits by treating it to be a case of retirement. Therefore, the Director of Pension was right in refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner for grant of pension. The other ground on which the respondents want to non-suit the petitioner is laches in approaching this Court pointing out that once the Director of Pension has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension in 1988, the filing of the petition in 1994 was grossly belated. A civil suit for recovery of pension would have been barred by time. Therefore, this Court ought not, in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction, have entertained the petition and grant any relief. He pointed out that it would be sound exercise of discretion to deny relief even in case of breach of fundamental right where the petitioner is found to be guilty of gross laches. ;