VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of all the retiral benefits of pension, gratuity, commutation, State ibsurance and G. P. F. Etc. for the entire period of service from 02. 02. 1970 to 30. 11. 2004 without any deduction and objection, calculated immediately on his retirement on 30. 11. 2004 on the basis of the last pay drawn. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay withheld amount towards gratuity and the amount of commutation etc. with arrears arising out of retiral benefits and interest @ 12% on the benefits from the date they became payable till the date of actual payment.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed on 02. 02. 1970 as Police Constable in the R. A. C. , 6th Battalion. Later on, after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner for the post of Constable Driver, he was selected and given posting on the post of Constable Driver. While the petitioner was working in the R. A. C. 3rd Battalion as Constable Driver, he was transferred to Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur as Driver on 09. 09. 1989 by the Director General, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur and was posted under the control of Superintendent of Motor Garage, Jodhpur where he was confirmed as Driver by the Controller, Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur on 19. 11. 1999. The petitioner took voluntary retirement with effect from 30. 11. 2004 while working on the post of Driver. The case of the petitioner is that neither any inquiry was pending against him under CCA Rules nor any inquiry was contemplated against him during his service tenure. Initially he worked in the R. A. C. on the post of Constable Driver and, thereafter, upon transfer to the State Motor Garage on the post of Driver, he worked till 30. 11. 2004 in the State Motor Garage Department. Therefore, the respondents were to grant him all retiral benefits as per the services rendered by him in the R. A. C. and State Motor Garage Department on the post of Driver. The contention of the petitioner is that he has furnished all the relevant proformas for granting him pension and completed all formalities as required under the law and his case was sent to the Joint Director, Pension Department, Jodhpur for necessary action vide Annex.-P/7. Similarly, for the finalization of the GPF and State Insurance claims, letter was written on 27. 11. 2004 to the Dy. Director, State Insurance & G. P. F. Department, Jodhpur; but, only provisional pension was allowed to the petitioner vide PPO No. 402047 (R) and gratuity vide letter No. 404121 (R) on 07. 05. 2005. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are not finalizing his matter with regard to his entitlement of pensionary benefit, so also, other retiral benefits, therefore, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition, notice was issued to the respondents and, thereafter, reply has been filed by the respondents in this case. In the reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 did not dispute para 1 to 7 of the writ petition; but, with regard to para 8, it is submitted that the pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Pension Department on 27. 11. 2004 but the same was returned with certain objections on 18. 12. 2004; and, thereafter, the respondent No. 3 sent back the pension case of the petitioner to the Pension Department after removing the objections raised by the Pension Department. Again, vide letter dated 18. 01. 2005, the Joint Director, Pension Department sent back the pension case of the petitioner with an objection that on 03. 09. 1989 the petitioner was getting pay scale of Rs. 760-1350 but how he has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 880-1680 upon his transfer. The said objection too was replied by the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21. 02. 2005 and the matter was sent to the Joint Director, Pension.
(3.) IT is further stated vide para 8 of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 that the Joint Director, Pension vide letter dated 04. 05. 2005 asked the Administrative Department to seek instructions from the Finance Department, on which vide letter dated 09. 05. 2005, the pension case of the petitioner was sent to the Controller, Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur for necessary action. Thereafter vide letter dated 29. 04. 2006 the necessary remarks were sent to the Pension Department. The Joint Director, Pension Department vide letter dated 05. 08. 2006 sent back the pension case of the petitioner for financial sanction and now the financial sanction is being sought. Thereby meaning that the State Motor Garage Department, from where the petitioner voluntarily retired from service, sent the pension case of the petitioner to the Pension Department but the same was pending due to objections raised by the Pension Department. By way of additional submission set out in the reply, filed by respondent No. 4, it has been stated as follows : In addition to the reply submitted here in above it is most respectfully submitted that petitioner Fateh Singh was appointed in the RAC on 2. 02. 1970. The pay scale of Constable in year 1986 was 760- 1350 and as such the petitioner was drawing the pay scale of Rs. 760-1350 thereafter on his own request petitioner was transferred in the Motor Garage Section of the post of Driver. That though the pay scale of M. T. Driver in year 1986 under revise pay scale was 880-1640 but the pay scale was not available to the constable of RAC who voluntarily sought transfer of their post of M. T. Driver because under the Rajasthan Civil Services revised pay scale Rule 1987, Rule 5 (1 ). The benefit of revised pay scale was admissible under the existing pay scale to the existing government servant and as per to provisions 5 (ii) of Rules 1987 the petitioner did not fall in definition of existing Govt. servant as such he was not entitled to pay jump from 760-1360 to pay scale of 880-1640 because the petitioner was transferred to M. T. Driver post on his own request when the error was detected by the respondent department and same was corrected as per law and it was decided that though the petitioner shall not be entitled for benefit of pay jump however amount paid in excess in account of wrong fixation was decided to not to be recovered and hence petitioner has been rightly granted pension of Rs. 3450 on the basis of last amended pay of Rs. 4600/- hence no fault lies in the humble respondent. Thus, as per the respondent, due to wrong fixation of pay the petitioner was granted pay of Rs. 5200/- whereas last pay at the time of retirement was less than Rs. 5200/-, therefore, since the dispute regarding pay fixation was under scrutiny and under consideration with the Pension Department, therefore, time was consumed; and, as such provisional pension was allowed to the petitioner on the basis of last pay of Rs. 4600/ -. The case of the respondents is, therefore, that due to non-grant of the benefit of jump the fixation was made by the Pension Department in which time was consumed. ;