STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BASANT PRAKASH
LAWS(RAJ)-1999-1-49
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on
January 25,1999
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
Basant Prakash
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMCHARAN DAS V. STATE OF RQJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]BABU RAM V. INDRAPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S.K. SINGH V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MONIKA JAIN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
J.S. RAWAT V. NATIONAL AIR PORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL V. R.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
T. SRINIVASAN V. T. VARALAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAJ V. AHMED SAYYED AKHATAR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
IMMANI APPA RAO VS. GOLLAPALLI RAMALINGAMURTHI [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
IFTIKHAR AHMED VS. SYED MEHARBAN ALI [REFERRED TO]
MAMLESHWAR PRASAD VS. KANHAIYA LAL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GOPAL CHANDRA MISRA [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT LADHA VS. SASHIKANT VISHNU SHINDE [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI VS. SURJEET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
G S LAMBA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. P K MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI LT COL S K DUGGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R N GOSAIN VS. YASHPAL DHIR [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. PARAM DEV [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BUDDHI KOTA SUBBARAO VS. K PARASARAN [REFERRED TO]
BALJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KISHUN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K K MODI VS. K N MODI [REFERRED TO]
NAND KESHWAR PRASAD VS. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P R DESHPANDE VS. MARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI [REFERRED TO]
G D HARSH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CERTIFICATION AGENCY [REFERRED TO]
CHANDU LAL VS. KALILUR RAHAMAN (LORD SIMONDS) [REFERRED TO]
SHEOPARSAN SINGH VS. RAMNANDAN PRASHAD NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.S.CHAUHAN, J. -
(1.)THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting -aside of the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure. 1), by which the order dated 14.6.1996 (Annexure.5) by which petitioner No. 3 had relieved the respondent No. 1 from service accepting her application for voluntary retirement, has been quashed.
(2.)THE factual gamut of the case reveals that respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher with the petitioners, applied for voluntary retirement on 12.8.1984 (Annexure.2) on the premises that she had competed her qualifying service on 12.11.1984 and, therefore, she may be permitted to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement with effect from 12.11.1984. Respondent No. 1, after submitting the said application, did not join her duty for a long time and after more than two years of submission of her application, she filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2245/1986 before this Court for seeking direction to the Department to grant her all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and State Insurance amounts etc. The Department took a stand in that writ petition that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to seek such reliefs as she had not completed the qualifying service and it was short by ten months; moreover, she had committed a misconduct of remaining absent without any cause or leave for a period of about two years and ten months. This Court took a lenient view and disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 9.7.1987. The relevant part of the Division Bench order runs as under -
The period of qualifying service according to the calculation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is 19 years two months and thirteen days. If this is the position, the petitioner would be placed in a very precarious situation if she does not get any relief in the matter having served the department for such a long period, it will not be proper to deprive her of the benefit accruing out of this service....The writ petition in the above circumstances cannot be allowed. However, in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to non -petitioner No. 2 to allow the petitioner to complete her qualifying period of service. The petitioner shall report on duty before non -petitioner No. 2 within two weeks. (Emphasis added).
In view of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 joined he duty on 14.6.1987. At the time of joining, she made an application that she was joining just to complete her qualifying service so that after completing the aid period, she might avail the benefits of voluntary retirement. Respondent No. 1 in spite of completing the qualifying service on 16.5.1988, remained in service as the Department did not pass any appropriate formal order of voluntary retirement. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed an application on 17.1.1991 withdrawing her application dated 17.1.1991 but passed the order dated 14.6.1995 (Annexure.5) in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.7.1987 and the effect of the said order has been as under -
(i) Respondent Smt. Basant Parakh would be deemed to have voluntarily retired with effect from 16.5.1988; (ii) service rendered by her after 16.5.1988 would not be computed for the purpose of determining the amount of pension; (iii) the payment made for the service rendered by her after 16.5.1988 would not be recovered; (iv) her period of absenteeism for two years nine months and nineteen days from 12.11.1984 to 31.8.1987 would be treated as extraordinary leave (without pay).
(3.)BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 284/1995 and at the same time she also preferred Writ Petition No. 1905/1995 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court with costs, giving her liberty to persue the remedy before the Tribunal. In the said writ petition, respondent No. 1 had challenged the vires of Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as well as the order dated 14.6.1996 (Annexure.5).
(2.)THE factual gamut of the case reveals that respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher with the petitioners, applied for voluntary retirement on 12.8.1984 (Annexure.2) on the premises that she had competed her qualifying service on 12.11.1984 and, therefore, she may be permitted to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement with effect from 12.11.1984. Respondent No. 1, after submitting the said application, did not join her duty for a long time and after more than two years of submission of her application, she filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2245/1986 before this Court for seeking direction to the Department to grant her all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and State Insurance amounts etc. The Department took a stand in that writ petition that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to seek such reliefs as she had not completed the qualifying service and it was short by ten months; moreover, she had committed a misconduct of remaining absent without any cause or leave for a period of about two years and ten months. This Court took a lenient view and disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 9.7.1987. The relevant part of the Division Bench order runs as under -
The period of qualifying service according to the calculation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is 19 years two months and thirteen days. If this is the position, the petitioner would be placed in a very precarious situation if she does not get any relief in the matter having served the department for such a long period, it will not be proper to deprive her of the benefit accruing out of this service....The writ petition in the above circumstances cannot be allowed. However, in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to non -petitioner No. 2 to allow the petitioner to complete her qualifying period of service. The petitioner shall report on duty before non -petitioner No. 2 within two weeks. (Emphasis added).
In view of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 joined he duty on 14.6.1987. At the time of joining, she made an application that she was joining just to complete her qualifying service so that after completing the aid period, she might avail the benefits of voluntary retirement. Respondent No. 1 in spite of completing the qualifying service on 16.5.1988, remained in service as the Department did not pass any appropriate formal order of voluntary retirement. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed an application on 17.1.1991 withdrawing her application dated 17.1.1991 but passed the order dated 14.6.1995 (Annexure.5) in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.7.1987 and the effect of the said order has been as under -
(i) Respondent Smt. Basant Parakh would be deemed to have voluntarily retired with effect from 16.5.1988; (ii) service rendered by her after 16.5.1988 would not be computed for the purpose of determining the amount of pension; (iii) the payment made for the service rendered by her after 16.5.1988 would not be recovered; (iv) her period of absenteeism for two years nine months and nineteen days from 12.11.1984 to 31.8.1987 would be treated as extraordinary leave (without pay).
(3.)BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 284/1995 and at the same time she also preferred Writ Petition No. 1905/1995 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court with costs, giving her liberty to persue the remedy before the Tribunal. In the said writ petition, respondent No. 1 had challenged the vires of Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as well as the order dated 14.6.1996 (Annexure.5).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.