RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of the impugned order dtd. 18/9/2017 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (for short 'the Corporation') by which the Corporation has denied to make payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on 14/11/1982 but his services were terminated by the respondents in the year 1985 and thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and finally an award was passed in his favour on 13/4/1994, by which his termination order was quashed and set aside and direction was issued to the respondents to reinstate him back with continuity in service. Counsel submits that the award dtd. 13/4/1994 was assailed by the respondents before this Court by way of filing writ petition No. 5525/1994. However, the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 31/10/1994. Counsel submits that the respondents submitted D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 398/1995 and the same was partly allowed vide order dtd. 23/12/1999 and the Division Bench restricted the back wages from the date of appointment. Counsel submits that in compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench, the petitioner was reinstated back in service vide order dtd. 8/2/2001 w.e.f. 13/4/1994. Counsel submits that after 5 years of reinstatement of the petitioner, he was granted regular pay-scale of 3050-75- 3959-80-4590 vide order dtd. 19/1/2006. However, the said order was withdrawn on 5/7/2006. Counsel submits that the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7071/2006 and the petition was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 16/12/2008. Finally, the respondents restored the order dtd. 19/1/2006 vide order dtd. 13/1/2016. Counsel submits that after rendering qualifying service, the petitioner stood retired on 31/12/2016, after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that in spite of passing of a considerable time till date neither pension nor any amount towards gratuity has been paid to him by the respondents without any justified reason. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to release due pension and gratuity amount to the petitioner forthwith without any further delay.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount of gratuity and a decision has been taken by the authorities to refund the amount deducted towards New Pension Scheme to the petitioner. Counsel submitted that notices were issued to the petitioner to submit his option whether he is ready to opt the benefit of New Pension Scheme. Counsel submitted that in spite of issuing two notices in this regard in the year 2017 till date, no reply has been filed by the petitioner. Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any pension and gratuity. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.