SOM DUTTA PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants have raised grievance that Rule 21C of the Rajasthan Service Rules (For short 'the R.S.R.') is violative of provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This question was not before the learned Single Judge. By seeking amendment, in writ petition, at appellate level, this question was raised.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has stressed that under Rule 21C of the R.S.R., the provision has been made to felicitate the State Government to pass an order whereby an employee can be asked to deposit any amount of arrears of pension/family pension and dearness relief in the General Provident Fund Account. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that this power conferred on the State Government by Rule 21C of the R.S.R. empowers the State to requisition the property vested in the appellants.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has further argued that once appellants have been held entitled, then State Government cannot withhold their property in the manner provided under Rule 21C of the R.S.R. The learned Counsel has further stated that State Government has issued a notification under Rule 21C produced with the writ petition as Annex. P/2. In this notification, the State Government has prescribed in Clause 16, the procedure for payment of arrears. The pensioner should either be paid in 60 equal instalments or arrears shall be deposited in G.P.F. Account of the employee until 31st March, 2003. During this period, the petitioners shall not be entitled to withdraw this amount except in case of death of pensioner or family pensioner.