SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to give benefit of pension to them with interest and any other relief or direction which this Court may think just and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, same may also be given in their favour.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed in Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board (Hereinafter to be referred in short `the Board'), a department of Agriculture, which was renamed as Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited (Hereinafter to be referred in short `the Corporation'. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they were initially appointed on work charged basis in the Agriculture Department on 30. 4. 62, 31. 8. 65, 1. 7. 61 and 3. 8. 62 respectively and from there they were shifted one to another department and after having converted the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board to Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation, the services of the petitioners remained same. The services of the petitioners were neither terminated nor they were appointed as fresh candidate in the Corporation and even their services were not interrupted even for a single day and due to this action the Board was converted into the Corporation. The petitioners were continued in services since their appointment. The respondent Corporation initiated a scheme namely `voluntarily Retirement Scheme' (Hereinafter to be referred in short `the VRS') to its employees and under that scheme the petitioners sought benefit of VRS. They were given the benefits of VRS and they retired from the service vide orders 30. 9. 2000, 1. 9. 1990, 27. 5. 95 and 10. 12. 1990 respectively. The Government of Rajasthan issued a circular No. F2 (26) FD (Gr. 2)/74 Jaipur dated 13. 7. 1994 extending the benefit of pension to the work-charged employees. After retirement, the petitioners made representation to the respondents on 31. 10. 2002 praying therein to grant pension to them as they were initially appointed in the Corporation w. e. f. 8. 7. 1970 and the services of the petitioners were not interrupted by such transfer, therefore, they be treated as government employees. The petitioners were never given termination letters from the Board nor they were informed at any time about their services being treated as a newly appointed in the Corporation. If the petitioners had received any order of termination/new appointment in the Corporation, then definitely they would have challenged the same before the appropriate forum to get the relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the services of the petitioners were changed from Board to the Corporation on 8. 7. 1970, the petitioners were not given any letter to this effect in writing. The place of the industries was not changed, machines/plants were not disturbed, assets/properties were the same as it was, only name of Engineering Board was changed to the Corporation. Only this change cannot make any difference in the services of the petitioners and because of this reason the petitioners are entitled for grant of benefit of pension.
(3.) AFTER changing the name of Board to the Corporation, neither the post held by the petitioners nor pay-scale and duties were changed. The names of the present petitioners in the list are at S. No. 148, 254, 79 and 117 respectively, although this list of transfer of industry was not provided to the petitioners and workmen thought at that time such change in the name of industry was internal matter of the management and in absence of any order/instructions in the regard the petitioners did not raise any objections. From the narration of facts it is clear that there is no reason what-so-ever for the respondents for subjecting some employees of one group from benefit of pension and others are granted and a discriminatory treatment is given in the matter of grant of pension. The petitioners who were absorbed in the Corporation were initially under direct control of respondent No. 2 and if they would have refused their absorption in the Corporation, then their service conditions would have governed by the same set of rules or orders which are applicable to the employees of the Agriculture Department. The parent department of the petitioners is still the Agriculture Department and same set of rules are applicable upon them and one person namely Shri Badri Prasad, who is working in the same department has been allowed the pension. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the State Government vide circular No. F. 1 (12) FD (Rules) 96 dated 6. 3. 1997 has taken a decision to pay the benefit of pension to the work-charged employees irrespective of whether deduction towards contributory provident fund was made from their salaries or not. The petitioners were never asked to submit their option according to this circular, had they been asked earlier to submit option for pension, definitely they would have submitted option for pension. After taking VRS, the petitioners made representation/application for giving benefit of pension as per the circular. ;