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
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
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.