Skip to content


Doongarsingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1519 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1979WLN(UC)17
AppellantDoongarsingh
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....prior to 1st april, 1951 could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the 25 years qualifying service.;writ allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k)..........on the post of ameen could be taken into consideration for the purpose of the computing the 25 years qualifying service.(ii) whether the service rendered by the petitioner prior to 1st april, 1951 could be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the 25 years qualifying service.5. in support of his contention that the qualifying service of the petitioner has to be counted only from 1st april, 1951 onwards for the purpose of rule 244 (2) of the rajasthan service rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner hat placed reliance on the letter dated 5th september, 1972 sent by the section officer (revenue (group i) department) of the government of rajasthan to the settlement commissioner. rajasthan. jaipur, wherein it is stated that the qualifying service of jodhpur state.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

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. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is claimed that the petitioner was appointed as Ameen on 1st February, 1948 and that for the purpose of compulsory retirement his service has to be counted from 1st February, 1948 and if so counted, the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service on 1st February, 1973 the date on which he was compulsorily retired under the impugned order.

4. The questions which arise for determination in this writ petition are:

(i) Whether the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Ameen could be taken into consideration for the purpose of the computing the 25 years qualifying service.

(ii) Whether the service rendered by the petitioner prior to 1st April, 1951 could be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the 25 years qualifying service.

5. In support of his contention that the qualifying service of the petitioner has to be counted only from 1st April, 1951 onwards for the purpose of Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the learned Counsel for the petitioner hat placed reliance on the letter dated 5th September, 1972 sent by the Section Officer (Revenue (Group I) Department) of the Government of Rajasthan to the Settlement Commissioner. Rajasthan. Jaipur, wherein it is stated that the qualifying service of Jodhpur State employees for the purpose of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules also shall be from 1st April, 1951 onwards. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on the letter dated 4th April, 1977 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr. 2) Department to the Accountant General, Rajasthan wherein it has been stated that the services rendered by Kanungos and Amins in the Survey and Settlement Department prior to 1st April, 1951 may be treated as qualifying for pension and pending pension cases may be decided accordingly. In the said letter it is stated that:

I am further directed to say that it has been decided to count the services of Kanoongos and Amins rendered by them in Survey and Settlement Department and the same shall qualify for pension. Accordingly Rule 194 of the Rajasthan Service Rules is being amended.

6. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has not been able to show that any amendment has been made in Rule 194 of the Rajasthan Service Rules in accordance with the decision contained in the letter dated 4th April, 1977. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that prior to the issue of the letter dated 4th April, 1977. the position was that services rendered by Amins in the Survey and Settlement Department did not qualify for pension and, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for the purpose of Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It has, therefore, to be held that the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Atmin in the former State of Jodhpur as well as in the State of Rajasthan prior to 1st April, 1951 could not be taken in to consideration for the purpose of computing the 25 years qualifying service. It is not disputed that if the service of the petitioner on the post of Amin in the Settlement Department of the former State of Jodhpur and the State of Rajasthan prior to )1st April, 1951 is excluded from consideration then the petitioner had not put in 25 years of qualifying service on 1st February, 1973 and the order dated 18th January, 1973 compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 31st January, 1973 could not be passed under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

7. The result is that the writ petition is allowed and the notice dated 18th October, 1972 and order dated 18th January, 1973 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service are quashed. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //