DINESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed at the instance of Dinesh Chand Sharma, who retired on 28.2.97 from the services of the respondents as Senior Deputy District Education Officer. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short -The Tribunal) inter alia on the premise that period of his services rendered from 28.8.1963 to 30.6.1964 has wrongly been ignored as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension and instead the respondents are proceeded to finalise the pension case treating his services from 1.7.1964 to 28.2.1997, this ignored the period of 10 months and 4 days. The petitioner also additionally claimed that he was promoted to the post of Sr. Deputy District Education Officer and joined as such in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Bikaner on 28.2.1997. He was according to Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Services Rules (for short the RSR) entitled to benefit of additional increment to the lower as well as higher pay scale and accordingly his pay fixation ought to have been made in terms of Rule 26A supra at the stage notionally arrived at by increasing the actual pay drawn in the lower case by one increment at the stage such scale is drawn.

(2.) SHRI N.K. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal wrongly rejected both the arguments and it was not justified in holding that according to Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, qualifying period of service would be commenced from the date of substantive appointment and the period of temporary/officiating appointment was not liable to be included in such period. The Tribunal wrongly held that since the petitioner was appointed as substitute on a post for which the lien was held by some other employee, the period of service rendered by him against such post would no be liable to be counted as qualifying service for grant of pension. Learned Counsel argued that the salary of the petitioner in the post of promotion i.e. Sr. Dy. District Education Officer in the scale of Rs. 8000 -13500 was wrongly fixed at Rs. 10,200/ -, in that only one increment in the lower post from which the petitioner was appointed was given, whereas increment at both the stages i.e. in the lower post as well as in the higher post according to Rule 26A 6f the Rules was required to be given. According to him, an increment of Rs. 100 was admissible in both the pay scales and, therefore; instead of fixing his pay at the stage of Rs. 10,200/ -, he ought to have been fixed at Rs. 10,300/ - and accordingly the amount of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues should have been calculated. Referring to Rule 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1996, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the period of temporary service even on the post against which lien is held by another employee, cannot be, on true construction of Clause (b) of Rule 12 and Sub -rule (2) of Rule 13, be excluded from qualifying service for grant of pension. Learned Counsel also referred to the definition of 'officiating' and Rule 26A of the RSR Rules in support of his contentions.

(3.) THE Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the premise that the period of service rendered by him as substitute on temporary basis cannot be treated as part of the qualifying service for pension. Guiding principles for computing qualifying service are contained in Rule 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1996, which for the facility of reference are reproduced hereunder: