Pukha Ram Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents are directed to include the previous service rendered by the petitioner under Panchayat Samiti Desuri, District Pali as qualifying service for the pensionary benefits and re-compute his pensionary and other retiral benefits.

The respondents may be directed that after re-calculating the pensionary and other retiral benefits of petitioner within a stipulated time as deems proper to this Hon''ble Court under the circumstances, pay arrears within a month of such determination failing which the respondents may be directed to pay an interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the humble petitioner from the date of such determination.

The cost of litigation may (also kindly be awarded to the humble petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed has teacher vide order dated 17.11.1981, passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Desuri, purely on temporary basis till availability of regularly selected teachers. The petitioner worked as a teacher at Panchayat Samiti Desuri till 20.10.1983. While serving as teacher at Panchayat Samiti Desuri, the petitioner appeared in recruitment process for appointment on the post of school lecturer in Education Department initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the petitioner was selected and joined as School Lecturer in the Education Department on 21.10.1983. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from the post of Principal on 31.10.2011 from the Education Department.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that the services rendered by him as teacher in the Panchayat Samiti, Desuri is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of determining his pension and retiral benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case of the petitioner does not fall under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1996'') wherein certain claims to pension were declared as inadmissible and, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner as teacher at Panchayat Samiti, Desuri are liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of determining his pension and retiral benefits.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Narata Singh and Another, and judgment rendered by this Court in Rameshwar Lal Behra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others,

The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the reliefs prayed by him in the writ-petition may be granted to him.

Despite service of notice, no reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis till availability of regularly selected teacher at Panchayat Samiti Desuri, therefore, his services are not liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of determining his pension and retiral benefits.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was appointed as teacher at Panchayat Samiti, Desuri purely on temporary basis till availability of regularly selected candidates as per the selection carried out by the Secretary to the Zila Parishad, Pali. While serving as teacher purely on temporary basis, the petitioner appeared in recruitment process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of School Lecturer in Education Department and was selected and appointed on the post of School Lecturer pursuant to the said selection. The petitioner had joined in the Education Department on the post of School Lecture pursuant to fresh selection. His services were not transferred by the Panchayat Samiti, Desuri to the Education Department on his selection as School Lecturer in October 1983.

The appointment of the petitioner in Panchayat Samiti, Desuri in November 1981 was purely on temporary basis on monthly wages till availability of regularly selected teachers and the said appointment of the petitioner is fully covered under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner because the services of the petitioner have not been transferred by the Panchayat Samiti, Desuri to the Education Department, whereas in the case of Rameshwar Lal Behra (supra), the services of the employee was transferred from Municipal Board, Nagaur to the District Administration. The facts of the present case are also clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board''s case (supra) whereby the Hon''ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants while holding that the policy decision of the Central Government was adopted by the Punjab State Electricity Board and as per the said policy decision, a temporary employee, who had been retrenched from the services of Central/State Government and had secured employment with the Punjab State Electricity Board, was entitled to count temporary service rendered by him under the Central/State Government to the extent such service was qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of Central/State Government. No such situation arises in this case, therefore, the ratio laid down in Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) has no application in this case. In view of above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.