Raju Lal Nat vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner herein seeks direction to the respondent-Department to pass an appropriate order and/or issue a writ according him benefit of his past service period, i.e. from 22.02.2012 to 23.05.2017 as per Rajasthan Decision (2) of Rule 25 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 with all consequential benefits.

2 The petitioner was previously appointed to the post of Constable vide order dated 21.02.2012. He successfully completed the probation period of 2 years and was made permanent in the post of Constable with effect from 22.02.2014.

3 Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 invited applications for the post of Teacher Gr. III, and the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the same. He was selected for the position and appointed as such by order dated 15.05.2017. Since he was selected for the post of Teacher Gr. III and wished to join, he tendered his resignation from the post of Constable, which was accepted by order dated 23.05.2017. He joined the post of Teacher Gr. III on the same date, i.e. 23.05.2017, there was thus no break in service.

While working as a Constable, petitioner's salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 and was receiving a salary of Rs. 10450/-. Since the pay scale for the post of Teacher Gr. III was the same, he was entitled to the same pay along with all other benefits, giving him benefit of past service. Wame was denied to him. He approached the competent authority and also served a legal notice dated 13.06.2017, but no action was taken. Hence, this petition.

The stand taken by the respondents in the reply is that as per the provisions of Rule 25 of the rules, ibid, if an employee resigns from service or a post, that entails forfeiture of service. In the present case, the petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted and since he did not produce any relieving order of the previous department, therefore, he is not at all entitled to get benefit of past services.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file.

Rule 25 of the Rules, ibid, being apposite, is reproduced hereunder:-

"25. Forfeiture of service on resignation-

(1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time admissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him."

Having perused the reply, it is borne out that admissibility and applicability of Rule ibid is not disputed. The claim of the petitioner to seek pay protection qua his past service rendered as a Constable is being denied indulging in red-tapism. Ostensibly, on the ground of not having routed his request through proper channel. As regards his past service, the same is also not disputed.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered.

Petitioner's pay fixation be done by taking into account his past service. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date petitioner approaches the respondents with web-print of the instant order.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.