DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 4. 9. 92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from 1. 9. 78 and respondents be further directed to pay pension to the petitioner in further months by month in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules with the benefit of commutation of pension etc.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- i) The petitioner was appointed as Cattle Pound Clerk on 17. 2. 53 with the respondent No. 3. The petitioner retired as Asstt. Revenue Inspector vide order dtd. 9. 8. 78 issued by the Executive Officer of respondent No. 3. For convenience the service history of the petitioner is quoted hereunder: Date of birth 2. 8. 23 Date of appointment & post on which first appointed 17. 2. 53 Cattle pound clerk Date of Retirement 31. 8. 78 ii) The petitioner after retirement was having the benefit of Bikaner Provident Fund Rules. However, in the year 1969 for whole of the State of Rajasthan unified Rules were framed which were known as the Rajasthan Municipalities (Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1969) which came into force with effect from 2. 8. 1970. iii) Rule 4 of the Rules of 1969 gave only alternative benefit to the employees regarding electing either the benefit of pension or the benefit of contributory Provident Fund. The petitioner accordingly gave his preference for the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund and the same were paid to him. iv) Before merger of various State in the State of Rajasthan, the matter about the contribution towards the Provident Fund was governed under the various State Rules such as Ajmer Merwara Provident Fund Rules, 1937, Bikaner Provident Fund Rules, Udaipur Provident Fund Rules, Jodhpur Govt. Service Regulation etc. v) on 1. 11. 59, Ajmer and Merwara merged with the State of Rajasthan and thereafter Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act was repealed and in that place Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) was brought into force which was applicable in whole State of Rajasthan including all the States which merged in the State of Rajasthan and thereafter Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963) were framed under the provisions of Act of 1959. vi) That an order issued by the respondent No. 2 vide order No. 16/b/dlb/76/7803-7811, GSR 64 dated 26. 5. 84 was published in the Rajasthan gazette on 17. 9. 87 by virtue of which in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 297 (1) (ii) (I) (T) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the pensionary benefits were given to the officers and employees of the Municipalities. The pensionary benefit was given to the officers and employees of the Municipalities of the former Ajmer state to those employees who had been appointed before coming into force of Rajasthan Municipalities (Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity) Rules, 1970. A copy of order dtd. 26. 5. 84 is marked as Annex. 3. vii) The main case of the petitioner is that since employees belonging to former Ajmer State were given the benefits of pension inspite of currency of contributory provident fund, the employees of other former constituent states were deprived of pension of the ground that they had already opted for the provident fund. Thus, Annex. 3 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. viii) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 26. 5. 84 (Annex. 3), the Rajasthan Nagar Palika Sewa Nivrat Karamchari Sangh filed a writ petition before this Court at Jaipur Bench being S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 288/1989 which was decided on 26. 2. 1991. Jaipur Bench of this Court and this Court took the view that the order dtd. 26. 5. 84 was discriminatory and arbitrary and held that pensionary benefits which were given to the employees of erstwhile Ajmer State should also be given to the employees of other municipalities of the constituent State of respondent No. 1. The date fixed in the order dtd. 26. 5. 84 was also quashed and it was stated that all the employees irrespective of the date of their appointment or retirement were entitled to the pensionary benefits notwithstanding the coming into force the Rules of 1970. A copy of judgment dtd. 26. 2. 91 is marked as Annex. 4.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the petitioner retired on 31. 8. 78 and after coming into force of Rules of 1969, the petitioner opted for contributory provident fund which was paid to him.