- (1.) WHILE considering the stay petition, the learned counsel representing both the parties requested for final hearing in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is being disposed of finally by this Order.
(2.) PURSUANT to the order dated 13. 11. 1969 (Exh. 1) the Government of Rajasthan took a policy decision to abolish the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and consequently, the services of the petitioner were placed under deputation with the newly formed Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation (for short `the RSAIC'-respondent No. 3) with effect from 8. 07. 1970. The petitioner had exercised his option for permanent absorption with RSAIC, which was duly forwarded by the State Government to respondent No. 3 on 5. 02. 1973. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that he will be entitled to proportionate pension in accordance with the Finance Department's Order dated 23. 7. 1968 and also the order dated 10. 04. 1969. Petitioner's option was accordingly accepted by the State Government vide it's order dated 20. 3. 1973. Thereafter, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31. 03. 1991, vide Exh. 10 on the record. Retirement was under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme of the Government. Since the petitioner had received the amount of ex- gratia to which he was entitled under the said Scheme but he had not been paid either proportionate pension of CPF nor anything had been communicated to the petitioner by the respondent, he was constrained to move to this Court by way of above noted writ petition. During the course of hearing it has been brought to the notice of this Court that this matter is covered by the ratio of decision (Exh. 17) of this Court in D. K. Bhargava vs. State and RSAIC (1), which was allowed on 3. 11. 93. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- " In the result the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the respondent Government has violated the right of equality available to the petitioner under Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by not giving him full pensionary benefits at per with those who had opted in pursuance of notice dated 25. 07. 1975. The respondent Government is directed to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner at par with those who had opted in pursuance of notice 25. 07. 1975. If the petitioner has not been paid the P. F. contribution made by the Corporation he will not be required to make refund. Else he should refund the amount of P. F. The pensionary benefits are to be paid to the petitioner in terms of this order shall be so paid to him within four months of submission of the certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this Order. Costs made easy. " In compliance of the above directions, the State Government (Department of State Enterprises) took a policy decision in the matter for the benefit of all the similarly placed employees like the petitioner on 11. 3. 1993 (Exh. 15) for ex-gratia pay- ment to such employees, who had opted for voluntary retirement scheme as under:- Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees of State Public Enterprises communicated to you vide BPE's letter No. 1947 dated 5. 07. 1989 provide for among others payment of an ex- gratia equivalent to 1-1/2 months emoluments (Pay + D. A.) for each completed year of service on monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by balance months of service left before normal date of retirement whichever is less. A clarification has been sought from the BPE on computation of amount of ex-gratia for terminal year in which the employee seeking voluntary retirement has worked only for a fraction of the year (i. e. less than completed year ).
(3.) THE matter has since been considered and it has been decided that in such cases the rate of ex-gratia for the terminal year for the purpose of clause (e) of para 3 of the Scheme (i. e. 1-1/2 months salary for every completed year of service shall be proportionate to the period of service rendered by the employees in the terminal year. For example in case of an employee has rendered 4 months service in the terminal year he would be entitled for ex-gratia (for the terminal year) equivalent to half months emoluments. It is pertinent to mention in this connection that in D. K. Bhargava's case (supra), the issue which had arisen for consideration of this Court was, as per petitioner's case that the employees, who had opted for permanent absorption in other Departments were not allowed full pension, any benefits but only the benefit of proportionate pension. Against the aforesaid decision of this Court, I have been informed by the learned counsel that the State did not prefer to go in appeal as is also evident from the decision of the State Government dated 18. 5. 1994 (Exh. 18) on the record. Consequently I am of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully attracted to the instant case being obiter in the matter and hence not open to challenge. ;