(1.) THE instant petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the pension already sanctioned to the petitioner vide Annexure 5 and for quashing the order dated 4. 12. 92, contained in Annexure 6 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been found non-suited for the grant of pension.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as a Helper with effect from 1. 6. 66 with the respondents and he was given semi-permanent status under the provisions of the Work-charge Rules, 1964 with effect from 1. 6. 68 as is evident from Annexure 7 issued on 28. 8. 72. Petitioner was further given permanent status with effect from 1. 4. 82 as is evident from the order dated 2. 8. 82 contained in Annexure 1 to the petitioner. He applied for voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and his application was considered vide order dated 11. 11. 91 contained in Annexure 3 and he was relieved with effect from 29. 11. 91 as is evident from the contents of Annexure 4 to the petitioner. THE petitioner was given the provisional pension etc. but now, it has been stopped. Hence this petition.
(3.) SIMILAR view has been taken in Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. etc. etc. In the said case, this Court was pleased to hold that whenever a tempo- rary or work-charge employee is appointed subsequently on regular basis, he cannot be denied the benefit of past services. The Court further observed that the work-charge employee and the temporary employee, both being discharging the same duties and functions, thus, there can be no justification in discriminating them for grant of future benefits in service on the basis of their birth-mark. While deciding the case, the Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Ismail Khan vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (5) and held that such employees shall be treated as permanent employees and they will be entitled for all pensionary benefits applicable to them.