SURESH CHAND MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ petition filed, the appellant claimed full pension and gratuity for the period he remained in service of the Government alongwith interest. Learned Single Judge vide order dated August 27, 2001 dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the appellant was appointed as Mechanical supervisor on August 6, 1965. While the appellant was working on the post of Junior Chargeman he was sent on deputation to the Rajasthan State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (in short Corporation) vide Notification dated November 13, 1969. The appellant was permanently absorbed in the Corporation and the services of the appellant were to be regulated as per the terms of the Finance Department's Notification dated July 23, 1969. The Assistant Secretary to the Government Agriculture Group II vide communication dated November 10, 1982 addressed to the Secretary of the Corporation directed that since the appellant alongwith 34 other employees opted for pension, the contribution made by the appellant be deposited towards pension. Pursuant to the scheme advertised by the Corporation, the appellant sought voluntary retirement on August 8, 1990. The request of the appellant was accepted and the appellant was permitted to be retired voluntarily w. e. f. September 1, 1998. The appellant made representation on December 16, 1990 claiming ex-gratia payment on the ground of rendering continuous service for 23 years. When the appellant not paid full pensionary benefits in pursuance to the orders dated May 25, 1990 and June 4, 1990 he preferred writ petition.

(3.) IT appears to us that the ratio indicated in D. K. Bhargava and R. K. Suri (supra), escaped attention of the learned Single Judge. Undeniably all the 34 employees who were referred in the letter dated November 10, 1982 were granted full pensionary benefits but the appellant was denied the same. The act of the Corporation in not granting pensionary benefits to the appellant in our opinion is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We also respectfully disagree with the finding of learned Single Judge that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches. Undoubtedly the writ petition was filed after one year and five months of the retirement but the relief in regard to pensionary benefits could not be denied on this ground since such denial gives continuous cause of action.