- (1.) THE petitioner, who was originally appointed as Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur was sent on deputation to the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and later on was absorbed in the services of Udaipur Dugdh Uptadak Sahkari Sangh vide Annex.11 dtd.9.3.1993 as Project Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3000 -4500/ - with effect from 1.4.1993. The said respondent ­ RCDF or Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh does not have Pension Scheme, but prior to the termination of lien of the petitioner from the Animal Husbandry Department w.e.f. 1.4.1993, the petitioner claims pension on the basis of his qualifying service rendered in that Department prior to his absorption in Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur submitted that this controversy is no longer res integra and this Court in the case of Dr. P.D. Purohit V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.3767/2010 decided on 23.9.2011 held that on the basis of their qualifying service prior to their termination of lien on the date when they were absorbed in the services of respondent ­ RCDF and Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, the petitioner would be entitled for the pensionary benefits. He also submitted that State appeal filed against the said order of the learned Single Judge dtd.23.9.2011 came to be dismissed on 10.9.2013 in DBSAW No.225/2012 ­ State of Rajasthan v/s Dr. D.N. Vyas. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner also being similarly situated is entitled to the same benefit. The relevant portion of the SB and DB judgment is quoted below for ready reference: SB JUDGMENT "In State of Rajasthan v. Madhushudan Sharma and Ors. (supra) it was held ni quite unambiguous terms that the lien of an employee with the State Government cannot be said to have been terminated, if such employee is not confirmed at the new post in accordance with the Rules. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was absorbed with the services of the Dairy only under an order dated 6.2.1990, as such, in view of the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Madhushudan Sharma (supra), his lien could not have been terminated under the order dated 2.7.1988 w.e.f. 1.9.1976. The petitioner as a matter of fact was entitled to retain his lient with the State Government upto 5.2.1990 as his service was absorbed with the respondent ­ Dairy on 6.2.1990. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner was selected for appointment to a permanent post with Dairy much back in the year 1976, is of no consequence as his permanent absorption with Dairy was made in the year 1990 only. The respondent ­ State was also treating his lien with it and for that reason only seniority was assigned to him in the cadre of veterinary Assistant Surgeon, even after the year 1976. The submission of counsel for the respondents that as per Government of Rajasthan's decision given under Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, no opportunity can be given to the petitioner to opt for pension after his retirement, too is of no consequence in view of the fact that the petitioner's lien was available with the State upto 5.2.1990 and during this period he completes the qualifying service, as such, he is entitled for regular pension and not the proportionate one. For the reasons given above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment dated 10.11.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is quashed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner is declared entitled for receiving pensionary benefits by treating his lien available with the respondent State upto the date of his permanent absorption in Dairy service, i.e. 6.2.1990 in present case. A direction is accordingly given to the respondents to grant all pensionary benefits to the petitioner as claimed by treating his service with the State of Rajasthan from 20.12.1962 to 5.2.1990. No order to costs. Sd/ - (GOVIND MATHUR),J." DB JUDGMENT "In the above factual premise having regard to the unassailable mandate of Rule 18 of the Rules, we are constrained to hold that the lien of the respondent Dr. P.D. Purohit cannot be said to have been terminated with effect from 1.9.1976, as admittedly on that date, he had not been substantively appointed in the services on the Dairy as contemplated in Rule 15 of the Rules so as to result in extinction of his lien with the parent department. The termination of his lien has to be with effect from 6.2.1990. By the same analogy, the date of termination of lien of other respondents viz; Dr. D.N. Vyas and Dr. S.P. Mathur stood terminated only on 22.1.1994/24.1.1994. In view of the above determination, the date(s) of termination of lien of the respondents in their parent department is/are as hereunder: (i) Dr. P.D. Purohit : 6.2.1990 (ii) Dr.D.N.Vyas : 22.1.1994/24.1.1994 (iii) Dr.S.P. Mathur : 22.1.1994/24.12.1994 The fact that the name of Dr. D.N. Vyas appears in the seniority list dated 20.5.1981, is being referred to only by way of supplementation of the above finding, it being even otherwise demonstrative of this conclusion. The inclusion of the name of this respondent in the aforedated seniority list only affirms the proposition that for all practical purposes, till that date, he was construed to be continuing in the State service. On an overall consideration of the above findings, we thus find no cogent and convincing reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders. We have traversed the same and find ourselves in respective agreement with the reasonings recorded and conclusions arrived -at on the basis of determination made therein. The appellant -State and its functionaries would now work out the pensionary entitlements of the respondents and release the same at the earliest and in no case, later than three months from today. Resultantly, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. sd/ - sd/ - (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (AMITAVA ROY), CJ" However, from the documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has not even approached the concerned respondent No.2­ Director, Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for claiming the same relief of pensionary benefits on the basis of aforesaid judgments of this Court, which are undoubtedly judgments in rem. If the petitioner is similarly situated with those petitioners, then the petitioner can be granted the same benefit without approaching the court afresh by way of a fresh writ petition. Therefore, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the respondent No.2 ­ Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur on the basis of aforesaid two judgments, which have been relied upon before this Court and the said Authority is expected to decide the case of the present petitioner by a speaking order. If there are no reasons to distinguish the case of the present petitioner from those before this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the said authority will immediately pass an appropriate orders in the case of petitioners for grant of same pensionary benefits. If however, there exists any cogent reason for denying the similar benefit to the petitioner, then after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said Authority will pass appropriate speaking order within two months from today. It is needless to say that if any order is passed against the petitioner, he will be free to avail the appropriate legal remedy.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;