SHANTILAL AHUJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 4-5-67 dismissing the appellant's application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these - THE appellant Shri Shantilal Ahuja was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. For some time he was a member of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and later on he worked as a Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries and Commissioner, (Food Supplies) to the Government of Rajasthan. He retired from service with effect from 17-11-1959 and was granted 120 days refused leave on his retirement. He was appointed a member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as R. P. S. C.) by an order of the Governor of Rajasthan dated 23-11-1959. In his order of appointment as a member of the R. P. S. C. there was an endorsement while forwarding the copy to the Accountant General, Rajas-than, Jaipur, containing the following direction of the Governor : ". . . . . . . . . . . . THE period of re-employment of Shri Ahuja shall be form 17th March, 1960. Under the provisions to Regulation 4 of the R. P. S. C. (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1951 the Governor has been pleased to order that Shri Ahuja's pay on re-employment be fixed @ Rs. 2,000/- p. m. the pay of the post of Member, R. P. S. C. his pension during this period being kept in abeyance. THE amount of pension equivalent to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity will be deducted from his pay. " THE amount to be deducted from the salary being the pension equivalent of death-cum retirement gratuity was calculated at Rs. 177. 46 vide order No. F. 14 (11) Apptts (A)/59 dated 23-11-59. THE petitioner-appellant took over as a Member of the R. P. S. C. on 1-12-1959, and drew monthly salaries after the deduction of Rs. 177. 46. He received the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity on 22-7-1960 after his appointment as a Member of the R. P. S. C. On 4-10-62 the appellant sent a detailed letter to the Special Secretary to the Government, Appointments (A) IV Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, protesting against the deduction of Rs. 177. 46 from his salary and there was some correspondence between the appellant and the respondent in connection with the impropriety of the deduction and for the refund of the deduction and for the refund of the amount deducted after retirement from the R. P. S C. On 27-5-1963 the appellant was informed that there was no question of refunding the amount which was being deducted from his salary every month as pension equivalent death-cum-retirement gratuity after his retirement from the R. P. S. C. As already said here-in-above, the deduction was being made in accordance with the terms of the appellant's appointment. On 26-8-63 the appellant filed the writ application praying for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the orders of the respondents to deduct the equated monthly amount from his salary as illegal and without jurisdiction. THE appellant's case was that Regulation 4 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) gave only two alternatives to the appellant, namely, (1) to determine whether at the time of appointment of a retired Government servant as the Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission, his pension was to be held in abeyance, whether wholly or in part; or in (2) the alternative, to determine whether the pay fixed by this Regulation should be reduced by the amount not exceeding the amount of such pension including such portion of it as may have been commuted after the pension as allowed to be drawn in full. THE petitioner appellant's sub-mission is that none of the two alternatives had been clearly determined but both had been applied in a confused manner. As the death-cum-retirement gratuity had been paid to the appellant there was no question of keeping it in abeyance.

(3.) IT must follow as a result of the above discussion that the direction for the deduction of the pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity from the appellant's salary during the period of re-employment is prima facie justified.