JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant wit petition is that despite the service rendered by the petitioner from 1988 till June 30, 2001 the retiral benefits have been declined by the respondent University vide communication dated August 24, 2001 (Ann.7) under the pretext of Regulations 22 and 29 of the University of Rajasthan Pension Regulations, 1990 (for short ‘Regulations’).
2. As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner after having served as Senior Stenographer from 1949 to 1970 under the Govt. of India (Staff of Central Public Health Engineering Research Institute) and State of Rajasthan undertakings as Personal Assistant, joined University of Rajasthan (for short ‘University’) on September 17, 1988. The services of petitioner were extended from time to time. In the meting held on September 24, 1991 the University resolved to appoint the petitioner as Stenographer Grade-II on substantive post in Academic Staff College vide order dated April 15, 1992. The petitioner continuously served the University till he retired on June 30, 2001. When retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner a request was made by him on July 11, 2001. In response the University vide communication dated August 11, 2001 declined to grant retiral benefits on the pretext that he did not render qualifying service of 10 years.
3. The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that when the salary was not paid to him in the regular pay scale, the petitioner had approached this court by filing SBCWP No. 2409/1992, which came to be decided on February 9, 1996 and the University was directed to put the petitioner in regular pay scale with usual allowance from the date of the order. The observations made in para 8 and 10 of the order have been incorporated in the writ petition, which are as under:-
“8. I find no reasonable jurisdiction disqualifying the petitioner only on the ground that he is not possessing a certificate of Higher Secondary from the Rajasthan Board. In addition, the petitioner’s long experience in the filed of Stenographer was totally ignored despite of the fact that the University itself had strongly recommended that he should be regularised on a sanction post which is evident from the fact that the University in its meeting dated 24.9.1991 had itself resolved that the petitioner be appointed as stenographer grade- II at the minimum of scale on substantive post, if the said post exists in the Academic Staff College, after selection by the Selection Committee. The question of fresh selection, however, in case of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be raised in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme referred to herein above. In addition, it is not plea of the respondents University that post in the Academic Staff College is not in existence.
10. I, therefore, consider it perfectly just and proper to allow this writ petition and direct the authorities of the respondent University to put the petitioner in regular scale of pay with usual allowance for the stenographer from the date of this order and continue to pay him the salary at par with the stenographers who are in regular scale of pay. His regularisation can be said to be effective only from the date of his order and prior to this his appointment was effective only till 31.1.1992 on fixed terms and conditions which he continued by virtue of stay granted by this Court. ”
4. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is to treat the services rendered by him from September 17, 1988 till June 30, 2001 as qualifying service for grant of retiral benefits and quash the order dated August 24, 2001.
5. The respondent University in the return pleaded that the appointment of petitioner vide order dated September 17, 1988 was on daily wage basis and it was made without following the procedure of selection. It is also averred that the High Court also declined the request of petitioner of equal pay for equal work prior to March 31, 1992. Since the service of petitioner were regularised from February 9, 1996 and he did not render qualifying service of 10 years he was not entitled to pensionary benefits.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record.
7. As per Regulation 22 of the Regulations even the service of temporary employee is treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Regulations 22 provides as under:-
“Regulation 22: Condition of qualifying service:
The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless it is conforms to the following conditions:-
(i) It is a paid service of a regularly appointed employee under the University.
(ii) The employment is in substantive, temporary or officiating basis.”
8. In so far the Regulation 29 of Regulations is concerned the minimum 10 years qualifying service is sufficient for the purpose of pension. The petitioner who was appointed temporarily as Personal Assistant on September 17, 1988 stood retired on June 30, 2001. Date of regularisation in the service hardly makes any difference in view of Regulation 22. The services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis form September 17, 1988 till February 9, 1996 have to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of granting retiral benefits, In my opinion Regulations 22 and 29 do not come in the way of petitioner.
9. In Ismile Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1986 RLR 24), the services rendered by a daily wage earner, were treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. It was observed in para 7 thus:-
“7. The period during which the petitioner has worked as a daily wage earner towards a regular work, may be of a temporary nature, cannot be said to be a daily wage within the classification of a casual labour. I have already discussed earlier that a casual labour means a person who has been appointed towards anticipated and unanticipated work for a particular work only. If the work has been anticipated earlier, then the person employed does not fall within the capacity of a casual labour, but may fall within the definition of a temporary labour. Therefore, the protection of Articles 14 and 16 is not available to a casual labour but it is available to be temporary labour and for the reason because it is not the case of the State Government that he was earning a daily wage earner towards an unanticipated work, it is to be presumed that he was a temporary employee during the period during which he was earning daily wages and for this reason also I hold that the period lying between 31.7.64 to 30.7.67 also falls within the definition of the qualifying service and the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of pension in accordance with the rules. The petitioner’s qualifying service shall be considered as qualifying for the purpose of pension from 31.7.64 upto the date of his retirement. ”
10. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and quash the communication dated August 24, 2001 (Ann.7). I direct the respondent University to treat the services rendered by the petitioner from September 17, 1988 till the date of his retirement as qualifying and grant the petitioner all retiral benefits according to law. The respondent shall ensure the compliance of this order within ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.