Vineet Kothari - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for claiming retiral benefits in the form of pension, gratuity, and arrears with interest @18% per annum and also to reimburse his medical expenses for heart operation in the month of June, 2004 to the extent of Rs. 2,36,000/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(2.) THE petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition has stated as under: 2. That the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper on 28th of March, 1953 in Electrical & Mechanical Department, Govt. of Rajasthan and he served in the Electrical & Mechanical Department from 28th of March, 1953 to 31st July, 1978 about 25 years and 4 months. With the claimed services of 25 years and 4 months, on the alleged ground of respondents having not paid him the pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition.
(3.) IN reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent - JVVNL, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present not only making false averments in the writ petition to his knowledge but has also concealed material facts from this Court. Para 2 of the reply is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 2. That the averments contained in para 2 of the writ petition are denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was appointed as helper in the year 1953 in Electrical and Mechanical Department, Government of Rajasthan. However in July, 1957, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board came to be formed. Upon formation of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in the year 1957, the employees working with the Electrical and Mechanical Department of State of Rajasthan came in Rajasthan State Electricity Board and subsequently became employees of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. However, the petitioner was working as the helper/casual labor from 1953 in the Electrical and Mechanical Department up till 1957 and from July, 1957 to 1962 in RSEB. In the year 1962, the petitioner left the services of the then Board and till that point of time his appointment was casual in nature as was not given regular pay scale. The payment of CPF deduction so made from the salary of the petitioner was also duly paid to him in the year 1962 itself. It is emphatically wrong to state by the petitioner that he worked for 25 years and 4 months i.e. up till 31st July, 1978 in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. The present writ petition in fact deserves to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts as well as on the conduct of the petitioner because prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar in the May, 2003. A true and correct copy of the application submitted by the petitioner before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure -R/1. A reply to the application in detail was filed by the answering respondent before the District Consumer Formation at Sri Ganganagar denying the fact as alleged by the petitioner. The true and correct copy of the reply filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar on 20.09.2003 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure -R/2. The District Consumer Protection Forum thereafter heard the arguments and vide order dated 13.09.2004 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant while holding him not entitled for any kind of relief. The true and correct copy of the order dated 13.09.2004 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure -R/3. The petitioner have conveniently concealed the fact of filing the application before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar and not only the same, have also mentioned here in this writ petition that he worked up till 1978 whereas, before the District Consumer Protection Forum, stated specifically that he worked up till 1962 only. The writ petition, therefore, preferred by the petitioner deserves to the dismissed with exemplary cost on the conduct of the petitioner as well as on the ground of concealment of material fact before this Hon'ble Court and making false statement with regard to the service rendered by him. So far as the other averments contained in the para with regard to the writ petition bearing No. 1679/1993, decided on 02.05.1997 is concerned, the same is having no application in the case of the petitioner as well as for a person like petitioner who is dishonest to the Hon'ble Court. So far as the notification dated 06th January, 1999 Annexure -1 is concerned, the same also do not have any application in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, no relief can be claimed on the basis of the same by the petitioner. That the averments contained in sub -para are also denied because in fact the petitioner submitted his option form while mentioning therein that he worked up till 1978 and considering the above fact the detail of service particulars were called by the Pension Department of the respondents from the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer in this turn requested the concerned Assistant Engineer to send the service particulars and record of the employees mentioned in the communication dated 22.10.2011. However, the application submitted before the District Consumer Protection Forum makes it clear that the petitioner worked only up till 1962 and, therefore, the communication dated 22.10.2001 sent by the Superintending Engineer is of no consequent and does not require to be looked into.;