JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE challenge in this intra-court appeal is the order dated 4th January, 2012 passed by Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1705/2011 filed by petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. The grievance of petitioner before Single Bench was that she was granted extra-ordinary leave w.e.f. 3rd May, 1993 to April, 1996, but the same have not been treated as leave on medical ground with consequential benefits of annual grade increment and counting the said period for pensionary purposes. Learned Single Judge considered the various aspects of the case and Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as well as Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 and came to a conclusion that it is only in certain conditions that period of extra-ordinary leave can be taken towards qualifying service towards pension. Since none of the grounds mentioned therein exists in the present case and leave granted to the petitioner from the year 1993 to 1996 was not on medical grounds, accordingly, she is not entitled to the benefit under the Rules of 1996. Learned counsel for the appellant made the same submissions, which were submitted before learned Single Judge. It was submitted that petitioner sought leave for a period of three months w.e.f. 3rd May, 1993 to 5th August, 1993 to visit her husband abroad at Yemen. She fell ill there, thus, could not return back to India. After recovery from her illness, she could return to India in the month of February, 1996 and joined the service in the month of April, 1996. Petitioner again sought and granted leave from 3rd December, 1997 till 3rd January, 1998 with further extension till 30th November, 1999. On 2nd January, 2002, petitioner was punished with penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect and period of said absence was treated as dies-non. Prior to aforesaid, the petitioner was granted leave for the period of 976 days vide Annexure-10 dated 7th July, 2001. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that learned Single Judge has considered all the submissions of petitioner and also the relevant Rules and has rightly rejected the writ petition of the petitioner. Apart from reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that writ petition of petitioner was highly belated as main order, which was under challenge before Single Bench was Annexure-10 dated 7th July, 2001, whereby the extra-ordinary leave of 976 days was granted, wherein it was also mentioned that aforesaid leave period will not be counted for the purpose of annual grade increment and qualifying pension service. The said order of 2001 cannot be allowed to be challenged along with further order of 2010 after such a long period or at highly belated stage. The petitioner went to visit her husband abroad at Yemen in 1993 and did not join since April, 1996 for about 976 days. In these circumstances, her extra-ordinary leave could not have been treated as the extraordinary leave on medical ground, so as to count them for the purpose of qualifying pension service. The reasons assigned by the Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for.
(3.) IN view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same is, accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.;