NEW
DELHI, NOV 21, 2006 : COMPREHEND this ! For more than 20 years,
a Government Servant has been looking up to the judiciary to deliver justice
and hoping to rest contented. And finally, after an arduous delay, it did come
only in the form of a partly favourable order from the High Court. So, yet again
the journey for justice continued only to come back to square one - Back to
the very same High Court- the corridors of which are testimony of the seemingly
endless wait for justice !
The issue -
Two civil appeals - one
filed by the Rajasthan State and other by contesting respondent ( Shri R.K.Agrawal
)- on related issues, came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court recently. The
Rajasthan High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Shri R.K.Agrawal
wherein directions had been issued to the State to
pay him pension for the period commencing 26th July, 1979 to 22nd July, 1982. However
interest on the same was not granted by the High Court. Both parties had reasons
to be aggrieved. According to the State, the respondent was not serving
the State Government during the above period and, therefore, he was not entitled
for pension for the said period . According to Shri R.K.Agrawal, the High
Court had failed to appreciate that there has been a delay of more than
20 years in payment of pension and/ or pro-rata benefits which was without
any fault from his end. As such, Shri R.K.Agrawal prayed that he was
entitled to interest and damages thereon.
The Hon'ble Apex Court interalia observed that :-
• In
this Civil Appeal, the State of Rajasthan has also raised several legal issues
in support of their appeal. According to the learned counsel for the State
of Rajasthan, the service of a Government Servant shall not
qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the
Government, or under conditions determined by the Government.
• He
has further argued that for the purpose of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, the
expression "service" means
service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated
Fund but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment, work-
charged establishment and service in a post paid from contingencies, unless
such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government.
• Though
this argument was also raised before the High Court, no specific finding
has been rendered by the High Court on this contention also.
• It
was also submitted that pension could not claimed for the period in question,
namely 26th July, 1979 to 22nd July, 1982 nor this period could be counted
for qualifying service because the retaining of the lien is only for the
purpose that the incumbent could revert back to the service of Rajasthan
Government, had he not been confirmed in the services of International Airport
Authority, but that does not entitle him to count this period as qualifying
service subsequent to any date beyond 26th July, 1979.
• We are of the opinion that since several important issues
have not been decided by the High Court, we have no other option except to
set aside the said judgment of the High Court, and remit the matter to the
High Court for disposal of the same afresh.
• The
High Court has not considered the delay of 20 years in giving the pension
and pro-rata benefits. If the delay is attributable to the Government, the
appellant ( Shri R.K.Agrawal ) is always entitled for the interest.
We request the High Court to consider this point also with reference to the
pleadings raised by the parties to this action.
• Since
the matter is pending before one forum or the other for more than two decades,
we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition by a Division
Bench within three months from the date of the order.
(See
case law
2006-HRIOL-29-SC-SERVICE in 'Laws 4 U')
