- (1.) Petitioner who stands retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.91 as Vikas Adhikari has filed this writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to finalise his case for pension and payment of pensionary benefits after regularisation of his service for the period between 28.5.91 to 17.6.91. He has also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him salary for the aforesaid period and the order of suspension as well as inquiry if any, pending against him be quashed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of the State Government in Panchayati Raj Department on his appointment as Village Level Worker in the year 1952. He was promoted as Vikas Adhikari in the year 1979 and it is this post which he held at the time of his retirement. By order dated 28.5.91 of the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of power under Rule-13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner made representation dated 28.5.91 to the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and on that very day the Minister made an order staying the order of suspension. After the order was passed by the Minister, the Director Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department issued order dated 17.6.91 reinstating the petitioner without prejudice to the departmental enquiry. However, for the period between 28.5.91 to 17.6.91 the petitioner has not been paid his salary. After his retirement the petitioner made representations for payment of pension and other retirement benefits. His application for grant of pensionary benefits and retirement benefits was forwarded to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. Some defects were pointed out in the pension papers vide letter Annexure-8 dated 11.6.92 of the Dy. Commissioner Development (Admn.), Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department and according to the petitioner he rectified all the defects. Even thereafter, his pension has not been released on the pretext that departmental enquiry is in contemplation.
(3.) Petitioner has stated that he had made representation to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department on 4.5.91 pointing out that the allegation levelled against him in respect of allotment of plot to one Smt. Ratan Devi was incorrect. This representation was- forwarded by the Collector, Tonk to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department vide his letter (Annex. 3). That letter was however, returned to the Collector by the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department with an observation that no such case was pending in the Directorate and the Collector should settle the matter on his own level. Office of the Collector has also written a letter dated 2.6.91 to the Officer on Special Duty in the office of the Chief Minister pointing out that in fact the case was under consideration in the Directorate of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department.;