GANESHI DEVI Vs. R VENKATESHWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these six contempt petitions entail an address on a similar question with regard to non compliance with the judgments on two different dates passed by this court with regard to payment of pension to the petitioners by virtue of their being ex-employees of the Municipalities in the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that vide judgments dated 12-8-2011 (26-7-2012 in Contempt Petition No. 337/2013) their claim of grant of pension came to be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 26-7-2002 passed by this court in case of Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1974/1994). It has been submitted that in the case of Mohan Lal Sharma decided on 26-7-2002 along with 18 other connected matters, this court found that classification of those who retired prior to October, 1987 differently from those who retired thereafter from service with Municipalities in the State of Rajasthan was arbitrary as retired employees of the Municipalities in State of Rajasthan were entitled to be considered as one homogeneous group not to be differentially conferred the right to pension. Hence holding that the eligibility criteria devised by Rules 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Pension) Rules, 1989 for payment of pension was violative of Article 14 and therefore deserving to be struck down, the court directed that all retired employees of the Municipalities in Rajasthan irrespective of the date of their retirement were entitled to pension and consequential benefits after adjusting the contribution of provident fund paid to them from the arrears of pension payable in terms of the judgment of the court.

(3.) It is submitted that the judgments of this court passed on 12-8-2011 and 26-7-2012 have not been set aside, modified or varied in D.B. Civil Special Appeal, and have therefore attained finality. Yet the petitioners have not been allowed fruition of the judgments and in fact petitioner Savitri Devi (contempt petition No. 1191/2011) has since expired and the contempt petition laid by her is being now contested through her legal representatives. Counsel submit that this late should befall the other petitioners.