STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS VERSUS O.P. GUPTA

 

CASE COMMENT

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERSVERSUSO.P. GUPTA

 

Appellant-STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

Respondent-O.P. GUPTA

Citation- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16734 of 2022

Date of Judgment- 28-11-2019

Judge Bench- NDIRA BANERJEE; J., J.K. MAHESHWARI; J.

 

INDTRODUCTION

This Special Leave Petition has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28th November 2019, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 443 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Petitioners and upheld the judgment of the Single Bench dated 5th May 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009, whereby the Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Respondent was initially appointed as an Assistant Charge Man in the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board, Department of Agriculture, and Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 13th January 1967. 4. The Engineering Board was subsequently merged with the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation. Accordingly, the services of the Respondent were transferred to the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation vide transfer order dated 8th July 1970, on the same pay scale. He worked with Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation continuously till 12th April 1977. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 16th June 1976 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “RPSC”), the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries). The Respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), Department of Industries, State of Rajasthan.

The Respondent was appointed as Assistant Director (AgroIndustries), Department of Industries, State of Rajasthan by an order dated 7th April 1977. According to the Respondent, he joined service in the Department of Industries on 16th April 1977.

ISSUES:-

The respondent want to add the total tenure in his pension and also The Respondent submitted representations to the Department of Industries requesting that his service tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 be counted for the purposes of his pension and retrial benefits. However, the request for counting the service tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977, was not granted. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009 before the Single Judge, Rajasthan High Court on or about 20th March 2009. The moot point for consideration before the Single Judge was, whether service rendered by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, should be counted for the purpose of pension.

 

ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANTS:-

The Petitioner–State filed an appeal being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 443 of 2018 against the judgment and order dated 5th May 2017 before the Division Bench By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28th November 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal being D. B. Special Appeal Writ No. 443 of 2018 with the following observations:

“...Admittedly, service of the respondent under the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board was pensionable. As per Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly held service rendered by the respondent with Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and Rajasthan Agro Industry Corporation was liable to be counted while computing pension/other pensionary benefits of the respondent.”

 

Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” reads as follows:

“25. Forfeiture of Service on resignation

(1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service.

 (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

 (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time admissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.”

Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners argued that the High Court had misconstrued Rule 25(2) of the Rules. He argued that resignation entails forfeiture of past service with the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, for the purpose of pension.

Dr.Singhvi, emphatically argued that:

i. the Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent after six years.

 ii. the Respondent was appointed to a higher post in the Industry Department. As such his past employment was inconsequential

. iii. There was no proof of prior permission before resignation from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation.

. Dr.Singhvi submitted that the appointment was a fresh appointment for which past service was inconsequential. Dr.Singhvi, emphatically argued that, in service jurisprudence, resignation necessarily leads to cessation from service and entails forfeiture of past service. The stand taken by the State is arbitrary, unreasonable and misconceived.

 

 

ARGUMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS:-

Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not create a regular forum of Appeal. It is only a residual provision which enables this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of any Court or Tribunal in India, in its discretion, as observed by this Court in N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors.

Citing Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, Ms. Dave argued that since power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was discretionary, this Court is not bound to set aside an order under Article 136, even if it was not in conformity with law.

 

 

JUDGEMENT:-

The High Court has rendered a just decision based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules applied to the admitted facts on record. The interpretation given by the High Court to Rule 25(2) of the Rules is a plausible interpretation. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

 

CONCLUSION

The argument given by the respondent was absolutely correct.

When the Respondent had passed the examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, then he held another post of the same government, then he was joined the another post which was a higher post and respondent also resigned in a legal manner at an appropriate time for.

Hence the respondent should get the pension for the total time spent by him in the service of the Government.