SHARMA, J. - (1.) IN the writ petition filed, the appellant claimed full pension and gratuity for the period he remained in service of the Government alongwith interest. Learned Single Judge vide order dated August 27, 2001 dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the appellant was appointed as Mechanical supervisor on August 6, 1965. While the appellant was working on the post of Junior Chargeman he was sent on deputation to the Rajasthan State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (in short Corporation) vide Notification dated November 13, 1969. The appellant was permanently absorbed in the Corporation and the services of the appellant were to be regulated as per the terms of the Finance Department's Notification dated July 23, 1969. The Assistant Secretary to the Government Agriculture Group II vide communication dated November 10, 1982 addressed to the Secretary of the Corporation directed that since the appellant alongwith 34 other employees opted for pension, the contribution made by the appellant be deposited towards pension. Pursuant to the scheme advertised by the Corporation, the appellant sought voluntary retirement on August 8, 1990. The request of the appellant was accepted and the appellant was permitted to be retired voluntarily w. e. f. September 1, 1998. The appellant made representation on December 16, 1990 claiming ex-gratia payment on the ground of rendering continuous service for 23 years. When the appellant not paid full pensionary benefits in pursuance to the orders dated May 25, 1990 and June 4, 1990 he preferred writ petition. On behalf of State of Rajasthan and the Special Secretary (respondents Nos. 1 and 2), no reply was filed. The Corporation (respondent No. 3) filed the reply and admitted the issuance of communication dated November 10, 1982 as well as the facts stated by the appellant in para 5 of writ petition. Relevant portion of para 5 reads as under- " That the Assistant Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Agriculture Group II vide letter dated 10. 11. 1982 issued to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Subhash Nagar Jaipur informed that the petitioner alongwith 34 others have submitted their option in favour of grant of pension. In this list petitioner's name appeared at No. 6. The Secretary of the Corporation was requested to deposit their contribution towards pension. Copy of the letter dated 10. 11. 1982 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-2. " We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance on D. K. Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (S. B. C. W. P. No. 5442/1991) decided on November 3, 1993. The operative part of the order reads thus- " In the result the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the respondent Government has violated the right of equality available to the petitioner under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by not giving him full pensionary benefits at par with those who had opted in pursuance of notice dated 25. 07. 1975. The respondent Government is directed to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner at par with those who had opted in pursuance of notice dated 25th July 1975. The respondent Government is directed to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner at par with those who had opted in pursuance of notice 25th July 1975. If the petitioner has not been paid the P. F. Contribution made by the Corporation he will not be required to make refund. Else he should refund the amount of P. F. The pensionary benefits are to be paid to the petitioner in terms of this order shall so paid to him within four months of submission of the certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order. Costs made easy. " In R. K. Suri vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2002) 2 WLC (Raj.) 44 = RLW 2002 (3) Raj. 1673 where the employee was originally sent on deputation and thereafter was permanently absorbed in the Corporation, it was held that title to pensionary benefit was not lost to the employee by virtue of such permanent absorption and he was entitled to pensionary benefits at par with other similarly situated employees.
(3.) IT appears to us that the ratio indicated in D. K. Bhargava and R. K. Suri (supra), escaped attention of the learned Single Judge. Undeniably all the 34 employees who were referred in the letter dated November 10, 1982 were granted full pensionary benefits but the appellant was denied the same. The act of the Corporation in not granting pensionary benefits to the appellant in our opinion is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We also respectfully disagree with the finding of learned Single Judge that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches. Undoubtedly the writ petition was filed after one year and five months of the retirement but the relief in regard to pensionary benefits could not be denied on this ground since such denial gives continuous cause of action. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated August 27, 2001. We direct respondent Corporation to release full pensionary and other retiral benefits to the appellant at par with those 34 employees who were referred in the communication dated November 10, 1982. The respondent Corporation shall ensure compliance of this order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. .;