MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service for last 35 years and to pay all retirement benefits accordingly at the time of his retirement.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows. On February 25, 1954, be was appointed as Operator in Chambal Project, Kota- On March 17, 1956, he was promoted as Chargeman. By order dated March 28, 1974 (Annexure 3), his services were transferred to Mahi Project, Banswara on the same post and grade. He drew his pay till March 28, 1974 there-from and from March 29 1974 from Mahi Project, Banswara. Harbanslal Gupta and Vijay Singh have recently retired and retirement benefits have been given to them taking into consideration the services rendered by them in the Chambal Project. He is due for retirement on March 29, 1989. He sent representations Annexures 4 and 8 to the State of Rajasthan praying that he has served for a continuous period of 35 years and he should accordingly be given retirement benefits. In reply, the respondents admit that the petitioner was initially appointed on February 25, 1954 in the Chambal Project, Kota, he served there till March 28 1974, he joined Mahi Project, Banswara on March 29, 1974, Harbanslal' and Vijay Singh were junior, they were transferred from Chambal Project, Kota to Mahi Project, Banswara, their services were not terminated in the year 1974 and the matter regardirg the payment of unutilised earned leave is under consideration. It has further been averred that the petitioner was retrenched from Chambal Project, Kota and he duly received retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 7, 238/ -. He has concealed this fact and on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It has also been averred that the petitioner stood retired on March 29, 1989 after attaining the superannuation age. After receiving retrenchment compensation in the year 1974, he cannot claim regular service of 35 years and he has duly been given retirement benefit for the service rendered by him in Mahi Project, Banswara. After the reply, the petitioner got amended his writ petition making further submission that the said order Annexure 3 was infact a tranfer order and not a retrenchment/termination order, he had no grievance as his employment continued and mere acceptance of Rs. 7,238/- did not go to create break in service. No such order was issued to his juniors Harbanslal Gupta and Vijay Singh while they were sent from Chambal Project, Kota to Mahi Project, Banswara. The petitioner's case is that the order dated March 28, 1974 (Ann-exure 3) is a transfer order and the respondents' case is that it was an appointment order. A perusal of the order shows that it was an appointment letter issued by the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara, On February 126, 1974, the Superintending Engineer, Chambal Project, Kota issued order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from February 28, 1974 on account of the reduction in the strength of the workers and, thereafter, appointment order Annexure 3 was issued giving fresh appointment to the petitioner at Mahi Project, Banswara. In view of the provisions of Rule 192, Rajasthan Service Rules, the case of the petitioner is unaffected whether the order Annexure 3 is termed as a transfer order or as a fresh appointment order. This Rule runs as under :- "192. Substantive office abolished.- If the permanent or the temporary post or office held by a Government servant is abolished but the Government Servant is appointed to another temporary or permanent post under Government on abolition of his post without any interruption or break in service, the service rendered in the previous temporary or permanent post shall qualify for the purpose of of pension. " Admittedly, the post held by the petitioner in Chambal Project, Kota was abolished, he was appointed on a similar post in the Mahi Project, Banswara on abolition of his said post without any interruption or break in service. As such the service rendered by him in Chambal Project, Kota had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension as required under the above quoted Rule. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, Harbanslal Gupta and Vijay Singh were junior to petitioner in Chambal Project, Kota and they were not retrenched as petitioner was retrenched. They were transferred to Mahi Project, Banswara. It is thus clear that different treatment was given to the petitioner without any reason. It has hit Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner has received Rs. 7, 238/- as retrenchment compensation in the year 1974. He has to refund it, if he wants the benefits of above quoted Rule 192, Rajasthan Service Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-calculate the pension and retirement benefits of the petitioner within four months from today after taking into consideration the services rendered by him in Chambal Project, Kota. The said amount of Rs. 7, 238/-will be adjusted in the arrears of pension and retirement benefits. Mo order as to costs. .;