PUKH RAJ SINGHVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE facts are frugal and the issue not very complex but is of a vital importance to the petitioner who is struggling long for his retiral benefits since his retirement from service after rendering almost 38 years of service, of which until 1962, to be precise 16. 11. 1962 with the State Government and, thereafter, w. e. f. 17. 11. 1962 with the University of Jodhpur, now named as Jai Narayan Vyas University.

(3.) THE petitioner laid his claim of pension in pursuance of a memorandum dated 17. 10. 1987 issued by the State of Rajasthan giving an option to the ex-employees of the State of Rajasthan, who retired after 1. 04. 1951, the date on which the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 came into force from the post under the Government availing themselves retirement benefits available under the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Rules to opt for pension rules as existing in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 on the date of their respective retirement. In pursuance of this memorandum issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 17. 10. 1987 (Annx. 1), the petitioner gave his option and claimed for fixation of his pension. THE pension case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur on 15. 12. 87, recommending his case for pension. A letter was again addressed by the Assistant Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur on 30. 06. 1988 to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for approving the pension case of the petitioner. However, by communication dated 1. 09. 1988, the Assistant Director Technical Education informed the petitioner that the Director of Pension, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his letter dated 19. 08. 1988, has informed that because the petitioner has resigned from the service, he is not entitled to pension. Vide letter dated 21. 09. 1988 addressed to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioner raised objection to the denial of his pensionary benefits pointing out that his retiral benefits otherwise due on retirement including gratuity and bonus etc. alongwith balance outstanding to him under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme were already paid to him and requested the Director to reconsider his case for release of pension. THE petitioner made representations again on 9. 01. 1989 and 11. 03. 1990. No response was made. Ultimately on 15. 05. 1994, the petitio-ner sent a notice for demand of justice to the State of Rajasthan through the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur; Director of Pensions, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Registrar, J. N. Vyas University, Jodhpur for giving him the pensionary benefits for the period of service rendered by him under the State Government from 18. 08. 1941 to 16. 11. 1962. On failure to get any response from the first of the three addressees, the petitioner has filed this petition. THE University of Jodhpur, vide its letter dated 27. 07. 1994, made it clear that so far as the Jodhpur University is concerned, it is not concerned with the pension case of the petitioner as it relates to grant of pension from the Government of Rajasthan for the services rendered by the petitioner with the State of Rajasthan before joining of the service of Jodhpur University.