P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction against respondents to release his retiral benefits such as leave encashment, GSLI (Group Insurance) with interest on arrears @12% per annum.
(2.) Apposite facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that petitioner is a retired employee of second respondent Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., of which apex body is Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (RCDF). At the time of his superannuation, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Manager. As a matter of fact, while in service, a dispute cropped up regarding retirement age of the employees of various milk unions working under RCDF and on behalf of various employees of milk unions writ petitions were filed before the Court praying for increase in retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Ventilating his grievance in this behalf, petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 1943/10. At the threshold, while issuing notices, Court passed interim order on 25th of February 2010 not to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years. On the strength of interim order, petitioner continued to serve its employer uptil 18th of March 2011. The writ petition was disposed of following the judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 165/10 (Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Kanti Lal Ojha and Ors.) . After disposal of his writ petition, Managing Director of second respondent convened its meeting on 22nd of March 2011 and resolved not to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees. Pursuant to the decision, Managing Committee passed an order dated 24th of March 2011 declaring the petitioner retired from services w.e.f. 28th of February 2010, i.e., on attaining the age of 58 years. Retiring petitioner and other employees from retrospective dates led to discontentment among employees and they submitted their objections that retirement of an individual cannot be from retrospective effect. Considering the objections of various employees and petitioner, third respondent Managing Director of the milk union solicited legal opinion and thereafter in adherence of legal opinion issued office order dated 31st of March 2011 altering date of superannuation of the petitioner from 28th of February, 2010 to 24th of March, 2011. When the petitioner was in service, Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department made amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 whereby retirement/death gratuity payable to a government employee was enhanced from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1st of January 2007. In adherence of the amendment made in the Rules of 1996, second respondent also increased the amount of retirement/death gratuity of its employees from 3.5 lakhs to 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1st of June, 2010. After issuance of necessary approval by the District Collector, Nagaur, gratuity amount payable to the employees of second respondent was increased and accordingly petitioner was paid gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 8,56,408 under order dated 19th of April, 2011. Though gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner but the other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and GSLI were withheld by the respondents. For claiming these retiral benefits, petitioner submitted various representations but no heed was paid by the respondents. In the writ petition, it is specifically averred by the petitioner that to the best of his knowledge Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has already forwarded payment of Group Insurance (GSLI) in favour of petitioner by Cheque No. 520620 dated 13th of April, 2011, therefore, withholding of said payment is a glaring example of arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondents.
(3.) On behalf of respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted wherein for withholding payment of leave encashment and GSLI, it is averred that the gratuity amount paid to the petitioner was in excess to the tune of Rs. 5,06,408, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the retiral benefits which he has claimed. Yet another objection raised is that order Annex.4 was passed by the then Managing Director, N.K. Bora, which facilitated excess payment of gratuity amount to him, and therefore, Mr. Bora was subjected to enquiry alongwith petitioner under the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Disciplinary Action and Appeal) Regulations 1980 (for short, 'Regulations') and therefore, claim of the petitioner for the desired retiral benefits is not sustainable.;