Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) THE subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dt. 9.1.2012 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9074/2009 upholding the respondent's claim for pension for the services rendered by him as security officer under the appellant -University with effect from 11.08.1988. We have heard Mr. T.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.K. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the facts in the bare minimum needed to dispose of the instant appeal, are that the respondent, who had retired as Subedar from the Indian Army, was appointed as security officer with the appellant -University on 11.8.1988 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 850/ - per month, temporarily and purely on ad hoc basis for a period of three months, at the first instance. The office order mentioned about the possibility of extension of this term, in the event of satisfactory service. He was thereafter continued in the same assignment, in course of which, his consolidated pay was enhanced to Rs. 1,650/ - per month and he was also paid caretaker allowance etc. Eventually, by order dt. 12.01.1995 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition), the Vice -Chancellor of the University was pleased to appoint him in the same post in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 -3200 with usual allowances as per the rules on ad hoc basis for a period of three months with effect from 1.1.1995 or till further orders, whichever was earlier. The respondent finally retired from the services of the University on 31.3.2000. As pension claimed by him by treating to be in interrupted service from 11.8.1988 was denied to him, he approached this Court. The pleaded defence of the appellant -University, in essence, in the writ proceedings, was that the challenge laid before this Court, having regard to the order of his retirement, was unduly delayed and thus, not entertainable. Apart from contending that the respondent being in receipt of pension as a retired military personnel, he was not entitled to double benefit on that count. The appellant -University urged that its Regulations did not permit payment of pension to an employee, who had been receiving pension otherwise. That the respondent had also not completed the required length of qualifying service, the same being reckonable from 1.1.1995 and not from 11.8.1988, was also underlined.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, as alluded hereinabove, having regard to the pleaded facts, the documents on record and in particular, Regulation 22 of the University Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') enforced with effect from 1.1.1990 and Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), held the respondent to be entitled to pension counting his continuous service as security officer under the University with effect from 11.8.1988 till his retirement on 31.03.2000.;