VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner superannuated from the services of the State Government as teacher on 31.07.1996. The petitioner initially was appointed as Teacher in the Municipal School of the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, on 09.03.1956, however, his services were later on transferred to the State Government w.e.f. 01.04.1972 when such Municipal Schools were taken over by the respondent State Government. In the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, CPF deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner and at the time of his absorption in the services from the Municipal Board, Rainsinghnagar to the State Government, he was paid back his contribution fund amount.
(2.) AFTER his retirement on 31.07.1996, vide Annex.3 representation dated 02.01.1998, filed by the petitioner to the Joint Director of the Pension Department, Bikaner, the petitioner submitted that he has deposited back his CPF amount contribution of the Municipal Board with 7% interest purportedly with the Municipal Board and, therefore, his past services rendered in the Municipal Board from 09.03.1956 till 01.04.1972 should be taken as qualifying service for pension purposes in the State Government and revised pension should be given to him. The para 4 of the said representation is quoted herein below for ready reference: - JUDGEMENT_438_TLRAJ0_2014.jpg Upon issuance of the notices, the respondent State has filed reply to the writ petition and has submitted that they have already issued the Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of petitioner, who unfortunately expired during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs were taken on record, on 13.10.1998 vide the PPO No.605595/BK and G.P.O. No.608744 dated 13.10.1998, therefore, it wrong to contend that pension case of the petitioner has not yet been finalzied.
(3.) MR . B.L. Bhati, learned Govt. Counsel, also submitted that deposit back of the CPF amount was much belated after his absorption in the services on 01.04.1972 in the State in the year 1998 and merely because no such time limit was fixed for depositing back of the CPF amount, while opting for pension, the petitioner could not be permitted to claim pension for the period of services rendered by him in the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, after his retirement and more so when such amount has not been deposited with the State Government as such. The relevant paras 2 and 6 of the reply are quoted herein below for ready reference: - "2. That in reply to para No.2 of the writ petition it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is being given pension in accordance with rules. He has been allowed P.P.O. No.605595/BK and G.P.O. No.608744 dated 13.10.1998 as such, the averments made in this para whereby he has alleged that the answering respondents have still not finalised the pension case of the petitioner is emphatically denied. The petitioner is being given pension in accordance with the prevailing rules. 6. That in reply to para 6 of the writ petition it is respectfully submitted that the averments made in this para are totally relating to the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar. The petitioner has said that the contributory provident Fund deducted was given to the petitioner and the petitioner refunded the entire loan (sic! CPF amount) amount on 19.6.1997 whereas, the petitioner has not made the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar as party -Respondent. The answering respondents don ot admit the averments made in this para in want of knowledge." ;