JHA, CJ. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner who is a retired District & Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service seeks quashing of the orders dated 3. 8. 2002 and 16. 1. 2003 refusing his request to count his past service under the Reserve Bank of India (for short `the RBI') for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
(2.) FACTS of the case are brief. The petitioner applied for and was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service being successful at the Competitive Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Pursuant to his appointment he joined the service on 29. 8. 1974. Earlier he was in service under the RBI on a clerical post from 16. 7. 1968 to 28. 8. 1974. While serving as District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner came to know that the past service of one Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service rendered under the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short `the ESI Corporation') was counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits by the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 16. 5. 1994. On 18. 9. 1997 he made representation to count his past service rendered under the RBI. On 30. 6. 2002 the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. On 3. 8. 2002 his request to count the past period was turned down by the State Government. The decision was communicated by the High Court on 19. 2. 2003. Copies of the letters dated 3. 8. 2002 and 19. 2. 2003 have been enclosed as Annexures 8 and 11 to the writ petition. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner's past service rendered under the RBI from 16. 7. 1968 to 28. 8. 1974 can be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules (for short `the Pension Rules') provides that `subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity". Shri Ashok Mishra appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 13 read with Section III of Appendix IX of the Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered under the RBI. He also referred to sub-rule (2) of rule 25 of the Pension Rules. Sub-rule (3) of rule 13 reads as under :      " (3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to Central Government or any other State Government with whom the Rajasthan Government has entered into reciprocal arrangements, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the Central Government or that State Government in substantive, officiating or temporary capacity, shall qualify : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply. " On a plain reading, it is evident that the employee of Central Government or any other State Government - with which the Rajasthan Government has entered into reciprocal arrangements - permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, can claim the benefit of the (past) continuous service rendered under the Central Government or the State Government. The proviso makes it clear that this sub-rule shall apply to only such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation. The petitioner was neither transferred to the Rajasthan Judicial Service nor joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service on deputation and, therefore, rule 13 can have no application. Before referring to Section III of Appendix IX we may notice rule 25 which was also referred to in course of hearing as mentioned above. Rule 25 reads as under:      " Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. . . . . . . . . . . . . "
(3.) ON a reading of the above rule, it would appear that the resignation from service or a post results in forfeiture of the past service. This is the general rule. However, the resignation may not result in such forfeiture if it has been submitted to take up, with prior permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Case of the petitioner is that he had sought prior permission of the competent authority of the RBI before appearing at the competitive examination for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service and, therefore, in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 25, he is entitled to the benefit of past service notwithstanding that he had resigned from the RBI. We are of the view that rule 25 applies to past service under the Government which means the Government of Rajasthan, and it does not include any other Government including Central Government or Central Autonomous/statutory Organisations. It may not be out of place to mention here that permission referred to by the counsel is sought, and granted by the employer, almost as a matter of course. The conditions of service invariably provide that before seeking employment elsewhere, permission of the competent authority be obtained. In fact, sometimes application is routed through the present employer. Now coming to Section III of Appendix IX, which is the sheet-anchor of the petitioner's claim, it may be mentioned that the instructions as contained therein were issued in the wake of demand of the employees of the State Government who joined the Central Autonomous Bodies/statutory Bodies and vice-versa. Initially, employees of the Central Autonomous Bodies/statutory Bodies were generally not entitled to the pensionary benefits and they were mainly entitled to Contributory Provident Fund benefits. Over the years, a large number of Central Autonomous Bodies/statutory Bodies adopted the same pensionary scheme for their employees as was available to the Central Government and State Government employees. It appears that the Government of Rajasthan had entered into agreement for reciprocal arrangement with the Central government to count the past service for the purpose of pension of employees of the State Government seeking absorption in Autonomous Bodies/statutory Bodies under the Central Government and vice-versa. The Central Government conveyed its decision that such cases may be decided in accordance with the principles laid down in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms O. M. No. 28 (10)/84 - Pension Unit dated 29. 8. 1984. Similar order regarding counting of service of the State Government employees in the event of their absorption in the Central Autonomous Bodies/statutory Bodies and vice-versa was to be issued by the State Government. ;