BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) FROM the material on record, the facts which emerge are that the petitioner retired from the service under the Department of Primary and Secondary Education on attaining the age of superannuation after serving the Department for almost 37 years and he had to wait for more than 4 years for getting his retiral dues that too after intervention of this Court. Notwithstanding there being clear provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, no interest was paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues. It was rather unfortunate that without going into merits of the case and apathy of the lowly paid Government servant after retirement, the petition was dismissed in limine by observing that the petitioner can seek his remedy by way of filing civil suit vide judgment under appeal, which has led to this appeal. According to the facts emerging from the record, the petitioner submitted pension paper in July, 1996. On 16. 9. 1996 certificate was issued by the concerned authority that no enquiry is pending against the incumbent nor any enquiry is contemplated against him. The papers for release of pension were not moved by the Parent Department until 12. 6. 1998. It is for the first time that the Parent Department forwarded the papers for release of pension to the Pension Department which was received by the Pension Department on 29. 6. 1998. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/1998 which was disposed of by this Court on 2. 7. 1998 directing the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner for retiral benefits within three months from the date of issuance of certified copy of the order. Inspite of this order, it has taken almost two years to finalise the pension case of the petitioner. From the reply submitted by the Pension Department, it appears that on 12. 6. 1998 the Parent Department for the first time forwarded the pension papers i. e. almost after two years of retirement of the petitioner. That too were not complete. Therefore, on 17. 7. 1998, the Pension Department returned the papers to be resubmitted after completing the same. The complete papers were returned only on 29. 5. 2000 exactly after 2 and 1/2 years from the date papers were returned for submission after completing the papers. There is no explanation for this delay on the part of the respondents. After papers were resent by the Education Department, the first order was made on 21. 6. 1998. Finding some error, amended pension order was issued on 24. 7. 2000. Undoubtedly, the Education Department has submitted its reply in order to exclude itself from the responsibility of delay in deciding the pension case.
(3.) UNDER the Pension Rules as were prevalent under the Rajasthan Service Rules before commencement of separate Pension Rules of 1996 and under the Rules of 1996 also, the Education Department or for that matter every Department is under an obligation to start preparation of pension papers atleast 2 years before the date of age of approaching superannuation of any incumbent. The Rules have been framed only to see that as on the date the incumbent retires, he gets his retiral dues promptly. If the employees are required to work to the satisfaction of the employer, the employer too is under an obligation to satisfactorily discharge its obligation towards its employees so that they do not have to run from pillar to post to get their retiral dues which is not a bounty, but a just reward for the services rendered. In this connection, we may draw attention to Rule 280 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as it existed on the date of retirement of the petitioner. It provides that every head of Department shall have a list prepared every six months, i. e. , on the 2st January and the 2st July each year of all gazetted and non- gazetted Government servants who are due to retire within the next two years of that date. A copy of every such list shall be supplied to the Director, Pension Department not later than 31st January or the 31. 07. as the case may be, of that year. In the case of persons retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of Department shall promptly inform the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan as soon as the impending retirement becomes known to him. Rule 281 provides for procedure for submission of formal application of pension. Rules 280 and 281 read together leads to reasonable conclusion that it is the duty of the head of the Department to prepare a list of the employees who are due to retire within the next two years of that date and not for the retiring employee to apply. ;