L R BAIRWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner who is a retired District & Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service seeks quashing of the orders dated 3. 8. 2002 and 16. 1. 2003 refusing his request to count his past service under the Reserve Bank of India (for short `the RBI') for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(2.) FACTS of the case are brief. The petitioner applied for and was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service being successful at the Competitive Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Pursuant to his appointment he joined the service on 29. 8. 1974. Earlier he was in service under the RBI on a clerical post from 16. 7. 1968 to 28. 8. 1974. While serving as District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner came to know that the past service of one Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service rendered under the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short `the ESI Corporation') was counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits by the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 16. 5. 1994. On 18. 9. 1997 he made representation to count his past service rendered under the RBI. On 30. 6. 2002 the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. On 3. 8. 2002 his request to count the past period was turned down by the State Government. The decision was communicated by the High Court on 19. 2. 2003. Copies of the letters dated 3. 8. 2002 and 19. 2. 2003 have been enclosed as Annexures 8 and 11 to the writ petition.

(3.) ON a reading of the above rule, it would appear that the resignation from service or a post results in forfeiture of the past service. This is the general rule. However, the resignation may not result in such forfeiture if it has been submitted to take up, with prior permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Case of the petitioner is that he had sought prior permission of the competent authority of the RBI before appearing at the competitive examination for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service and, therefore, in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 25, he is entitled to the benefit of past service notwithstanding that he had resigned from the RBI. We are of the view that rule 25 applies to past service under the Government which means the Government of Rajasthan, and it does not include any other Government including Central Government or Central Autonomous/statutory Organisations.