V. S. DAVE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner joined the service of erstwhile State of Bharatpur on February 16, 1936 as a Patwari and continued to serve thereafter, the State of Rajasthan, after the merger of State of Bharatpur into State of Rajasthan. During the period of his service, he did not join duty on being transferred on July 13, 1964 and was therefore placed under suspension vide letter dated January 19, 1965. He was also charge-sheeted for willful absence. THE Sub-Divisional Officer, Bayana was appointed as Inquiry Officer who submitted an ex parte inquiry report to the Collector, Bharatpur. THE Collector, Bharatpur on the basis of the inquiry report submitted to him, after serving a show cause notice"as contemplated under Art. 311 (2.) of the Constitution of India, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension. This order came to be passed on May 16, 1966. Having failed in his endeavour to success in appeal against above order to the Revenue Board, he persuaded his remedy only for the pension to which he was entitled according to the order of the Collector, Bharatpur, dated May 16, 1966. He since then, had been approaching various authorities but nobody has extended a helping hand to him, resulting in denial of pension to him till date. According to the documents submitted the Collector, Bharatpur did write a letter to the Collector, Dholpur for taking personal interest into the matter and getting the matter settled. But that letter, it appears, did not bring the fruitful results. His representation to the Revenue Board resulted in writing a letter to the Collector, Bharatpur who in turn again wrote a letter to the Collector, Dholpur in reference to that order. Having failed to get relief either in the office of the Collector, Bharatpur or the office of the Collector, Dholpur and the petitioner having left with no other efficacious remedy approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. On May 11, 1989 the Division Bench of this Court issued a notice to show canse as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Notice of the Stay Petition was also issued. But for 7 months despite the service, the respondents did not choose to file the reply. Time is again being prayed for today but I am not willing to give adjournment any further.
(2.) IT is simply shameful for those who were to decide the pension case of the petitioner that they could not do it for 23 years. A person who has put in three decades in the service of the State and has given his best part of life in it, it has to run after the clerks and officers for another more than two and a half decades and placed in a miserable position then such a situation cannot be thought of in any civilised society. In fact, these are the cases which sets examples of poor functioning, in-efficient and redtapism in the functioning of the State. Petitioner who is now in his evening of live having attained the age of 78 years requires to be adequately compensated by releasing the pension alongwith interest i. e. what the minimum can be done. In any developed and civilised society most respected are those who are in advance age and who are or had been members of the defence services or their widows but it is lamenting that cases after cases are coming that such persons are being harrased and humiliated in matters of pension in our State. 1 have already said while dealing with the cases of pensioners, that those who are in charge of finalising matters regarding pension should realise that they will also retire some day and they should visualise the miseries which an old man has to face after his retirement. If they do not visualise this, their future would not spare them. I can only bemoan at the attitute of those who were concerned with finalising the case of the petitioner. If for some technical reasons he was not entitled to, then too minimum courtesy expected of the functionaries of the State was to inform him of the position. Not having been done so, there is no other option but to conclude that the respondents together with the Collector, Dholpur have failed to discharge their duties in accordance with the settled norms of the practice. I, therefore, direct the respondents as also the Collector, Dholpur to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and refer the case to the Director Pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and further one month's time is given to the Director Pension to release the pension upto date along with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date, the petitioner was entitled to pension. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner's case is not settled within next three months the petitioner shall be entitled to henceforth interest at the rate of 18% p. a. and the failing officer shall also be liable for dis-obedience of the order of this Court for which proceeding according to law shall be initiated. The respondents shall pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner as cost of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .;