Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers: - "i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for condonation of pre -interruption period i.e. 10th March, 1992 till 31st Oct., 1996 and 4th Nov., 1996 to 15th Oct., 1997 under Rule 27 read with Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996 with all consequential benefits and treat the said period as qualifying service within the meaning of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1996 with all consequential benefits. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to condone the interruption period i.e. between 16th Oct., 1997 till 2nd Dec., 1999 taking into account the service rendered by him with the Central Government Corporation to be a part of qualifying service within the meaning of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1996 with all consequential benefits. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to condone the interruption period of two spells of state service rendered by the petitioner i.e. from 1st Nov., 1996 till 2nd December, 1999 in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 with all consequential benefits. iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." Facts in brief are that after passing the qualifying examination conducted by the R.P.S.C. on 10.3.1992, the petitioner was initially appointed as a medical officer and was given posting at the Upper Primary Health Center, Bhinmal vide order Annex. 1 dated 10.3.1992. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner resigned from State services on 9.9.1996 as he was selected by a Central Government undertaking being Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. The resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent authorities on 24.10.1996 w.e.f. 31.10.1996. The petitioner claims to have worked with the said undertaking for a period of 11 1/2 months i.e. from 4.11.1996 to 15.10.1997. The petitioner thereafter applied for and was granted a fresh appointment in the State services in the department of Medical & Health Services and was appointed as a Medical Officer w.e.f. 3.12.1999. His services were thereafter regularised on 29.11.2000. The petitioner claims that he realized that he made an inadvertent mistake while resigning from the State services earlier and accordingly, he submitted an application dated 20.6.1997 for withdrawing his resignation. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner served the respondent State for a period of about 4 years & 7 months between 10.3.1992 to 31.10.1996 and thereafter, he served with a Central Government undertaking before being re -inducted in the State services in the year 1999. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that the break in service which was caused on account of the aforesaid situation be condoned and for the said period to be counted and taken into account for the purpose of counting the benefits of pensionary scheme upon the petitioner. A reference has been made in support of this contention to the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (for short, referred to herein after as 'the Rules of 1996') and it has been prayed that the break in service which the petitioner suffered owing to unavoidable circumstances deserves to be ignored for according pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
(3.) BEFORE approaching this Court by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for seeking redressal of his grievances. The said appeal was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.5.2002 leaving the petitioner at liberty to submit a representation to the respondents for ventilating his grievances. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents which came to be rejected on 17.10.2002 intimating the petitioner that there was no provision in the Rules for condoning the period of interruption in service and accordingly, the prayer for condoning the said period was rejected.;