BALIA, J. - (1.) THE respondent-petitioner Bheru Lal Menaria, who was an employee of respondent non petitioner No. 2 Rajasthan Sahitya Academy filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- " (b) Respondent State Government may kindly be directed to approve the various resolutions dated 1. 5. 87, 15. 4. 96, 15. 5. 98, 16. 7. 99 and 17. 7. 99 passed/resolved by the Sanchalika/saraswati Sabha of the Rajasthan Sahitya Academy, Udaipur. (c) Impugned decision communicated vide Annexure P/13 may kindly be quashed and State Government may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and Academy in the light of various representations after giving the opportunity of hearing to employees of the academy and its union; (d) Respondents may kindly be directed to enforce the pension scheme for the petitioner and employees of Rajasthan Sahitya Academy from the date of its first resolution/when RSR was made applicable. (e) Petitioner's pension case may kindly be prepared and sent to Pension Authority for grant of pension after his superannuation.
(2.) THE petitioner had superannuated on 30. 9. 1999. The resolutions referred to in the relief clause (b) are the resolutions made by the Academy for extending the benefit of Pension Scheme to its employees on their superannuation to replace the existing retiral scheme of Contributory Provident Fund. The letter Annex. P/13 is an emphatic note from the State Government disapproving the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Academy because of its financial constraints, conveying that the Finance Department is no agreeable to approve the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Academy. The contention of the petitioner primarily rests on Annex. P/10 which was written to the Academy, Udaipur by the Assistant Secretary to the Government in response to their letter dated 23. 4. 1987 that until further orders, with reference to letter under reference, the State Government approves the applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the RSR) to the Academy. On this premise, it was contended that once the provisions of RSR have been extended to the Academy, it included the extension of provisions relating to entitlement to pension to the employees of the Academy on superannuation and once the provisions of the RSR have been extended to govern the recruitment under Academy and that approval has not been withdrawn, the subsequent non acceptance of the resolutions by the State Government for extending the pension benefit to the employees of Academy are of little relevance and cannot affect the petitioner's right to claim pension on his superannuation. No return has been submitted by the State Government before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed by a short order which reads as under:- " When the respondents are duly served with the notices and they have not chosen to file any reply then the averments made on oath in this petition have to be accepted. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the State Government is directed to approve the resolutions dated 1. 5. 1987, 15. 4. 1996, 15. 5. 1998, 16. 7. 1999 and 17. 7. 1999 passed by the Sanchalika/saraswati Sabha of the Rajasthan Sahitya Academy, Udaipur. Consequently, the impugned decision communicated vide order at Annex. P/13 is quashed. " While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge further stated. " The Government is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and Academy in light of various representations after giving the opportunity of hearing to the employees of the academy and its Union. Thereafter, the respondents may consider the question of enforcement of Pension Scheme for the petitioner and employees of Rajasthan Sahitya Academy for the date of its first resolution and the pension case of the petitioner be prepared and sent to the Pension Authority for grant of pension after his superannuation. "
(3.) A perusal of the order shows that it is self-contradictory in this contends. On the one hand, the learned Single Judge directed the State Government to approve all the resolutions passed by Sanchalika/saraswati Sabha of the Academy and in the next breath, it has stated that the Government shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and Academy in the light of various representations after giving an opportunity of hearing to the employees of the Academy but in the same moment, the learned Single Judge directed to prepare the case of the petitioner for grant of pension after his superannuation. Apparently, the order read as a whole leaves no room for consideration by the State Government whether to approve or not to approve the resolutions for extension of Pension Scheme to the employees of the Academy. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that, notwithstanding no reply was filed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not show application of mind to the material produced by the petitioner himself, which did not justify the directions noticed above without considering the impact of the material on record. ;