SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to give benefit of pension to him 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 his favour.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was 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 petitioner submits that he was initially appointed on work charged basis in the Agriculture Department on 9. 1. 65 and from there he was shifted one to another department and after having converted the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board to Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation, the services of the petitioner remained same. The services of the petitioner neither terminated nor he was appointed as fresh candidate in the Corporation and even his services were not interrupted even for a single day and due to this action the Board was converted into the Corporation. The petitioner was continued in service since his 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 petitioner sought benefit of VRS. He was given the benefit of VRS and he retired from the service vide order dated 19. 9. 95 w. e. f. 30. 9. 1995. 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 petitioner made representation to the respondents on 23. 3. 2004 praying therein to grant pension to him as he was initially appointed in the Corporation and the services of the petitioner were not interrupted by such transfer, therefore, he be treated as government employees. The petitioner was never given termination letter from the Board nor he was informed at any time about his services being treated as a newly appointed in the Corporation. If the petitioner had received any order of termination/new appointment in the Corporation, then definitely he would have challenged the same before the appropriate forum to get the relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the services of the petitioner were changed from Board to the Corporation on 8. 7. 1970, the petitioner 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 service of the petitioner and because of this reason the petitioner is entitled for grant of benefit of pension.
(3.) AFTER changing the name of Board to the Corporation, neither the post held by the petitioner nor pay-scale and duties were changed. The name of the present petitioner in the list Annex. 1, although this list of transfer of industry was not provided to the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner who was absorbed in the Corporation was initially under direct control of respondent No. 2 and if would have refused his absorption in the Corporation, then his 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 petitioner is still the Agriculture Department and same set of rules are applicable upon him and one person namely Shri Badri Prasad, who is working in the same department has been allowed the pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner was never asked to submit his option according to this circular, had he been asked earlier to submit option for pension, definitely he would have submitted option for pension. After taking VRS, the petitioner made representation/application for giving benefit of pension as per the circular. ;