MISHRA, J. - (1.) THE wirt petition, which has been filed claiming pension by the petitioner, is being resisted on behalf of the State Government of Rajasthan by adopting hyperlechnical plea which is evident from the facts which are enumerated as follows :
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on 15/8/1963 on the post of Electrician in the Sangeet Natak Academy of Rajasthan and continued there upto 24/10/1972. THEreafter from 25/10/1972 to June, 1975, the petitioner had worked in the Rajasthan Lal}t Kala Academy since the Sangeet Natak Academy got merged in Lalit Kala Academy. It appears that in the year 1975, the petitioner stated working in the Ravindra Manch, which is also a body financed by the State Government, On a consolidated salary of Rs. 220/- per month. Subsequently, this Ravindra Manch also was taken over by the State Government in July, 1975 and the employees working therein were treated as employees of the Education Department. THE plea of the petitioner, therefore, is that he has been serving the State Government right from the year 1963 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 220a, and even though he retired after 20 years of service, he is not being granted the pension and the retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Deepa Ajwani, contesting the petitioner's right to get pension, has submitted that the petitioner's service was on a contract basis and, he joined the service of the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1975 purely on contract basis. She has, however, accepted that the employees of the Ravindra Manch were also taken over by the State of Rajasthan and they were treated as employees of the Education Department, but she has also contended that the petitioner's services were not taken over as, according to her, the petitioner served only for some period in the Lalit Kala Academy and for another period in the Sangeet Natak Academy which admittedly are the autonomous bodies but are fully financed and aided by the State Government. It, therefore, does not stand to reason why the petitioner had been singled out from getting his services merged into the State Service only on the ground that he has not worked in the State Government continuously for 10 years in order to make him eligible for pension. She has, however, submitted that even all other employees whose services were taken over by the State Government and were absorbed in the Education Department have not been placed in the regular scale of pay and are working on consolidated salary. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts of this case, it is difficult to reconcile to the fact that even though the employees have been working in the Government of Rajasthan for almost 20 years, thus, alarmingly long number of years should be denied the pensionary benefit merely because they have not been put in the regular pay scale. If there is scope for such employees to continue and they are also allowed to continue for an unlimited long number of years, I see no justification why they should not have been given regular pay scale and the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has also cited Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which lays down as under : - "179. Condition of qualification : - The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following conditions : - First - The service must be under Government. Second - The employment may be in subslantive/permanent/ temporary or officiating capacity. Third - The service may be paid by the Government. " A perusal of this Rule clearly indicates that even if the employment is substantive/permanent/temporary or officiating capacity, the employee qualifies for pension. Thus, in view of this Rule, counsel for the State Government cannot be allowed to raise this objection regarding denial of pension in view of the fact that the petitioner, even though has worked for 20 years, should be denied the pensionary benefits because he had been working on consolidated salary and not on regular scale of pay. It needs no mention that had the petitioner knocked the doors of the Court, and had prayed for regularisation of his service on the plea that he, having served in the Department for long years of service, has a right to be regularised, he would not only have become entitled for regular scale of pay but also pensionary benefits. There are numerous decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court which hardly needs mention that in such a situation, the Court granted regularisation in service as also the regular pay scale. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not have the means to knock the doors of justice and when the question of his survival, after retirement has arisen, he is being denied even the pensionary benefits. In my view, apart from Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the additional reason is that if the specific age of retirement is laid down even for the persons who are working on contract basis on consolidated salary, then there is no justification why he should not be given the pensionary benefits and, if not, then in the alternative why he should not be given the opportunity to claim extension of period of service according to his health condition. Be that as it may, since there is already Rule 179 fortunately, making the persons eligible for pension even if they had worked in temporary/officiating capacity and the petitioner having qualified the said condition, in view of the said Rule, he is surely entitled for the grant of pension which should be held payable to him from the date of his retirement i. e. 31/3/1983. Since the petitioner has moved this Court for redressal of his grievance in the year 1985, he shall be granted pensionary benefit from the date of his retirement which is 31/3/1983, which is consistent with the view taken in Ismail Khan vs. State of Raj. (1 ). The counsel for the respondent is directed to obtain a copy of this order and bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities about passing of this order. They are directed to calculate the pension, of the petitioner according to the Rules applicable to Class IV employees within a period of four months from today and, file an affidavit in this Court within a period of fortnight thereafter regarding compliance of this order. .;