PANNA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had been appointed as an untrained Physical Instructor in the Education Department, Churu by order dated 27th Dec, 1972 on temporary basis after his name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Churu. The petitioner was confirmed as an substantive employee in the Govt. service w.e.f. 28th Dec, 1974. By yet another order dated 20th April, 1983 the appellant -petitioner was treated to be trained in terms of the Govt. order dated 12th Dec., 1978 and he was accordingly fixed in the pay scale applicable to trained teachers w.e.f. 29.12.1982 on completion of 10 years of service, with future increments due on 29th December of the succeeding years. Thereafter, vide order dated 11th March, 1983 (Annx. P/2) while working on the post he was made to superannuate on 29th Feb., 1998 on completion of 55 years of age only.

(2.) DURING the fixation of retiral benefits, the question has been raised by the petitioner that he has been prematurely retired before completion of age of superannuation which at the relevant time for the Rajasthan State employees was 58 years and not 35 years. The petitioner raised this objection before the concerned authorities. He was informed that he has been rightly retired on the completion of 55 years of age because his appointment can be treated to have been given Under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex -Service Personnel) Rules, 1959 and they can be appointed under the rules maximum upto the age of 55 years, and therefore, his prayer for treating his services to be continuous upto 58 years has been refused.

(3.) IN pursuance of above direction, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents which was rejected by the impugned order dated 5th May, 1997. The claim of the petitioner has not been entertained on the ground that since the petitioner's appointment can only be justified Under the Rules of 1959, the appointment could be given only for five years on contract basis or until he attains the age of 55 years whichever is earlier and in view of that, the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not apply. While considering the other cases referred to by the petitioner viz. Govind Singh and Bhopal Singh, it was reasoned that they were appointed under the regular procedure and therefore, their case cannot be equated with the case of the petitioner for claiming the age of superannuation to be 58 as is envisaged Under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. This led to filing of the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen.