GARG, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to calculate the entire services rendered by the petitioner in account i. e. with effect from 20. 4. 1965 to 31. 10. 89 in place of 1. 8. 68 to 31. 10. 89 and thereafter his pension case be re-calculated and revised pension, gratuity and other benefits be given to the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department (Chief Engineer, P. W. D. , Jodhpur) on daily rated basis with effect from 20. 4. 1965 and he was declared semi- permanent with effect from 20. 4. 1967. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after attaining the age of superannuation he stood retired from the service with effect from 31. 12. 1989. He was allowed retiral benefits by taking into account his service with effect from 1. 8. 1968 and his prior service which he rendered from 20. 4. 1965 to 31. 7. 1968 as daily rated employee was not taken into account and this aspect of the matter has been challenged in this writ petition. In this respect, It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that present case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that no doubt the present case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Guman Singh (supra), but it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the matter of the petitioner had already been settled, therefore, in view of memorandum dtd. 6. 3. 1997 (Annex. R/2), the case of the petitioner should not be allowed to be reopened. Hence, this writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court in the case of Guman Singh (Supra) has clearly held that an employee appointed on daily wages towards anticipated work be deemed eligible to treat the services rendered by him as a daily wager for computing the qualifying service for pension.
(3.) APART from the decision in the case of Guman Singh (Supra), this Court has taken similar view in the case of Rameshwar Lal vs. State (2), Durga Lal vs. State (3), Harbans Lal vs. State (4), Om Prakash vs. State (5), Ismail Khan vs. State The issue of "qualifying service" was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding State of Rajasthan vs. Vasu Deo (7), and the Court held that an employee appointed on daily wages towards anticipated work would, also, be deemed eligible to treat the services rendered by him as a daily wager for computing the qualifying service for pension within the meaning of rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. While deciding Amar Singh vs. State (8), this Court has held that the primary liability to deduct the contributory Provident Fund amount is of the employer and not of the employee and if such a deduction has not been made, the employee cannot be deprived of the right of pension. ;