R K AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a member of Rajasthan Judicial Services worked as Judicial Officer for the period from 07.04.1962 -26.07.1979 and after taking due permission joined service as Law Officer in International Airports Authority of India ("IAAI")and while joining, his lien remain suspended in Rajasthan Government as per Rules and finally stood terminated on being confirmed in the IAAI w.e.f. 27.07.1980 vide order dt.01.10.1982 in view of R.18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules ("RSR").

(2.) THIS case regarding grant of pro -rata pension and gratuity for the first time came to be sanctioned by the State Government vide order dt.08.08.1995 from the date of order he was confirmed in the IAAI dt.01.10.1982 taking note of the period of qualifying service rendered by him w.e.f. 07.4.1962 -26.07.1979. It can be noticed from the record that a legal notice was served under the instructions of the petitioner by his counsel dt.14.09.1998 (Annx.53) wherein it was claimed by him that as he stood confirmed w.e.f. 27.07.1980 on the post of Law Officer in the IAAI, New Delhi on successful completion of the period of probation of one year and became entitled to receive pro -rata pension, gratuity etc. w.e.f. 27.07.1981 in accordance with R.158 of RSR read with Govt. decision no.5 and 6 appended thereto and his request was that pro -rata pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits may be sanctioned based on qualifying service rendered by him from 07.04.1962 -26.07.1979 to be payable w.e.f.27.07.1981 with interest till actual payment but it appears that the matter stood dragged from one place to the other and when he failed to get his dues to which he was entitled for under the law finally approached to this Court by filing writ petition.

(3.) HOWEVER , the writ petition at one stage came to be decided after hearing the parties vide judgment dt.30.10.2002 but that order was challenged by the State Government and also by the petitioner by filing Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court and after the matter was heard the Apex Court was of the view that certain salient questions which were raised regarding implication of R.158 of RSR and the effect of R.13, 17 and 18 of RSR and so also the fact as to whether the incumbent is entitled for interest on account of delay in payment to which he was entitled for under the law, since remained unnoticed by the Division Bench of this Court, while setting aside judgment of this Court dt.30.10.2002 remitted the matter back to this Court to decide the issue after hearing the parties afresh vide order dt.31.10.2006.