STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GAJ SINGH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed the present appeal to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 7/8/2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7352/2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner respondent herein was appointed as Junior Geologist in the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan on 27/11/1963. He was sent on deputation to Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation, where he discharged his duties from 27/10/1969 to 29/10/1972. He was again sent on deputation under order dtd. 11/7/1973 to Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., which was later-on re-named as Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. While working in the said organization, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Deputy Controller of Stores and Purchase under letter dtd. 10/12/1974. To accept such appointment, the petitioner sought permission of the Department and offered his resignation in public interest under letter dtd. 14/12/1974. The department granted permission to the petitioner to join the said organization and accepted his resignation vide communication dtd. 4/1/1975. The petitioner thereupon was absorbed in RSMML where he worked from 5/1/1975 till 31/12/1995 when he retired on superannuation from the post of Group General Manager. The petitioner thus had rendered total service in the Government and Government Corporation put together of about 31 years. Out of this, the petitioner had put in 11 years, 1 month and 9 days services in the Mines and Geology Department of the State Government which included the period spent on deputation. The petitioner sought the benefit of the said services of over 11 years with the Government, which was rejected by the Government under the letter dtd. 20/11/2009. The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court. Though the prayers made in the writ petition are somewhat confusing, both sides agree that the petitioner wants the benefit of past period of service of 11 years, one month and 9 days rendered with the Government and receive proportionate retiral benefits. According to the counsel for the petitioner this would include pro-rata pension and gratuity for the period in question. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and directed the State authorities to grant proportionate basic pension to the petitioner from 5/1/1975 to 31/12/1975 (which appears to be based on the prayer made by the petitioner but his prayer appears to be to grant continuous pension on the basis of the petitioner's past service with the Government).

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.