THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SANWAR MAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the non-appellant. We find reasons for the condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) A writ petition was filed by the petitioner-non-appellant to challenge the action of the appellants-State respondent for withdrawing the order for pensionary benefits for counting the past service rendered with the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. between 07.07.1982 to 29.07.1989. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, though, at one stage, the matter went up to the Division Bench. The appellant- State passed fresh order in pursuance to the direction of Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 773 of 2015, decided vide order dated 27.07.2016. The State Government denied the benefit of past service for pensionary benefits and the order aforesaid was assailed by the petitioner-non-appellant. It was stated that the petitioner-non-appellant was initially appointed by the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., where he worked till 29.07.1989. He appeared in the selection conducted by the RPSC. On remaining successful, he was appointed by appellant-Department. He resigned from Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. in consonance to the rules. Since application for selection to the RPSC was sent through proper channel, there was approval to appear in the selection and, on appointment, to join the service in the State Government. The State Government taking aforesaid into consideration, passed order for the pensionary benefits by counting the period of past service rendered with Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. At the subsequent stage, the order was withdrawn though it was in consonance to rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996) read with Appendix IX to the Rules of 1996.

(3.) The similarly placed Officer namely Shri N.K. Mishra was also extended the benefit of past service for determination of the pensionary benefits, thus discrimination was caused in the case of petitioner-non-appellant by withdrawing the order. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition for pensionary benefits after counting the past service.