RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the question of law raised in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE question of law which has arisen for consideration of this Court in both the writ petitions is as to whether a work -charge employee of Public Works Department (B and R) (for short PWD) is entitled to grant of pensionary benefits on completion of qualifying service on reaching the age of superannuation and whether the Department in which the petitioners have rendered their services as work -charge employees is justified in not counting the period of service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of' pensionary benefit on the ground that they were daily -wage employees and hence not entitled to pensionary benefits ? Another question which has arisen for consideration of this Court is whether the benefit of full pension as per Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules should not be extended to the petitiosner in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ismail Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1986 WLN 59 as well as in the matter of Birdhi Chand v. State of Rajasthan SBCWP No. 5897/93 and 6 other connected writ petitions, decided on 25.5.95, wherein this Court had directed the concerned department to re -examine the case of each of the petitioners for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for the grant of pensionary benefits in lieu of services rendered for the period they had worked as work -charge employees for. fixing their pension in accordance with the rules irrespective of the fact the contributory provident fund (for short CPF) had been deducted from that salary of such employees. It has not been disputed that both the writ petitions are squarely covered by the above referred orders passed by this Court against which an SLP was also filed by the State Government before the Apex Court and which has since been dismissed by the Apex Court.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a work -charge Mistri in the PWD of the State Government with effect from 15.1.47 at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month in the Medical College, Jaipur vide office order issued by the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3). He was made permanent on the said post vide office order dated 10.1.68. On 26.9.75 the petitioner was directed to be retired from the said post of Mistri on attaining the age of superannuation and his pension case was sent for finalisation to the Accountant General, Rajasthan, under the orders of the respondent No. 3 dated 26.1.78.