MADUSUDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition, while praying for following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 3, while claiming that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book and has also claimed that he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme in place of new pension scheme. When the said representation of the petitioner was not decided, then he moved another representation on 13.10.2008. In response to the representation dt. 13.10.2008, the respondents issued an order dt. 17.12.2008 and corrected the date of birth of the petitioner but did not grant the benefit of the old pension scheme to the petitioner. The petitioner has sent various reminders to the respondents but the respondents have not granted the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the Court's directions against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998 -1999 and was granted seniority from the year 1998 -1999, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner on the ground that he was appointed in the year 2005 and, therefore, he is entitled to be fixed in the new pension scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the appointment was granted to the petitioner way back in the year 1998 and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Jitendra Singh was also appointed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998 -1999 and was granted the benefit of the old pension scheme and the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Shri Jitendra Singh but the respondents are not granting the similar benefits to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed in the writ petition.