DOONGARSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Doongarsingh, has challenged the order dated 18th January, 1973, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner joined the service of the former State of Jodhpur as Ameen Audit in the Jagir Settlement Department with effect from 1st February 19 -48. The said, post of Ameen was a non -pensionable and temporary post The petitioner continued to work as an Ameen even after the formation of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari with effect from 4th January, 1955 by order, dated 18th December, 1954 and he was confirmed on the post of Patwari by order dated 25th March, 1964 with effect from 4th January, 1955 By a notice dated 18th October, 1972,, issued under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, the petitioner was informed that he would -be completing 25 years of qualifying .service on .1,st February, 1973 and that the State Government was satisfied that it. was in, public interest to dispense with further service of the petitioner and that the petitioner, would be required to retire with effect from 1st February,, 1973 pr the date -of expiry of this calender month from the service of notice on him whichever was liter. The said notice was followed, by the order dated 18th January, 1973 to the effect that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from Govt. Service with effect from 31st January, 1973 after noon. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18th January 1973, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that an order of compulsory retirement of a Government Servant can be passed under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, only in a case where the Government servant has completed 25 years of qualifying service or he has attained the ape of 55 years and that in the present case, the petitioner had neither completed 25 years of qualifying service nor had he attained the age of 55 years on 1st February, 1973 In this regard the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the qualifying service of the petitioner has to be counted from the date of his first appointment as Patwari with effect from 4th January, 1955 and that the earlier service of the petitioner on the post of Ameea in the former State of Jodhpur as well as in the State of Rajasthan could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service. In the alternative the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if the service of the petitioner on the post of Ameen is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service, the said service could only be considered from 1st April, 1951 onwards and that service rendered by the petitioner prior to 1st April, 1951, could not be taken in to consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service.

(3.) THE questions which arise for determination in this writ petition are: