Posted On by &filed under High Court, Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur.


Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
B.D.Kiradu vs Raj.State Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam … on 19 August, 2008
                                  1

          S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1546/2004.

                  B.D. KIRADU
                       VS.
RAJASTHAN STATE VIDHYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. AND
                    OTHERS


DATE OF ORDER                 :               19.08.2008.


             HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.

Mr. Rakesh Kalla for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Bhansali for the respondents.

The petitioner entered in the services of the

respondents on 03.07.1965 as Junior Engineer. A promotion

was accorded to him as Assistant Engineer on 10.06.1983. An

enquiry to probe certain allegations of misconduct was lodged

against him and that resulted into an order of removal dated

06.05.1995. A settlement committee of the respondents by an

order dated 12.02.1999 set aside the penalty of removal and

substituted the same to that of reduction to a lower stage by

three increments in time scales of Assistant Engineer (taking the

pay drawn by him on the date of removal from Board’s services

i.e. 6.5.95). The settlement committee further ordered for

sanction of the extraordinary leave for the period the petitioner

remained out of employment due to the currency of the penalty

of removal. In the order dated 12.02.1999 (Annexure 2), while

granting extraordinary leave to the petitioner, it was also made
2

clear that the period concern shall be counted for the purpose of

continuity of service. The petitioner stood retired from service

on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1999. The

respondents while determining pension of the petitioner have not

taken into consideration the period commencing from

06.05.1995 to 19.02.1999 for determination of the petitioner’s

pension being that period treated as the extraordinary leave.

This petition for writ is preferred for taking into consideration the

period aforesaid for determining pension.

According to the respondents, the period

commencing from 06.05.1995 to 19.02.1999 was declared as

extraordinary leave availed by the petitioner without pay,

therefore, that was not required to be taken into consideration

for determination of pension.

It is true that in normal course, the period of

extraordinary leave is not required to be taken into consideration

for determination of pension as it is an interruption in service,

however, in the instant matter, the settlement committee by the

order Annexure 2, while granting extraordinary leave to the

petitioner for the period from 06.05.1995 to the date of rejoining

by the petitioner, also ordered to count that period for the

purpose of continuity in service. Once the respondents have
3

decided to treat the period aforesaid as a part of continuous

service, that cannot be ignored while determining pension.

In view of it, this petition for writ deserves

acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The

respondents are directed to re-determine pension of the

petitioner by taking into consideration the period commencing

from 06.05.1995 to 19.02.1999 as the part of pensionable

service of the petitioner.

No order to cost.

(GOVIND MATHUR)J.

Anil/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.222 seconds.