On a writ petition challenging the denial of pensionary benefits due to the petitioner's failure to deposit gratuity and bonus with interest as required by pension rules, the court held that the requirement was mandatory and the respondents' action in denying the benefits was not illegal. The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6887/2004 (Raghuveer Singh Sahiwal & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr.)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6887/2004
(Raghuveer Singh Sahiwal & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr.)
Date of Order : 07th January, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr.Mukesh Kumer Verma, for the petitioner/s. Mrs.Saroj Choudhary, for the respondent/s.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits by accepting
his option.
Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 19 of Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “Rules of 1972”) , application was moved by the petitioner to deduct the amount of gratuity and bonus with interest from the salary and allow option for the pensionary benefits. The aforesaid was illegally denied by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that as per option scheme,
one was required to deposit entire amount of bonus/gratuity with interest so as to opt for the pensionary benefit. The petitioner defaulted therein and despite reminder for the aforesaid vide Annex.5 to the writ petition. In view of above, denial of pensionary benefits is not illegal.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the record.
The respondents allowed option for the pensionary benefits, however, subject to deposition of amount of gratuity/bonus along with interest. Petitioner had
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6887/2004 (Raghuveer Singh Sahiwal & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr.)
2
defaulted therein. He did not pay the amount aforesaid as per requirement of Rule 19 of Pension Rules of 1996. A representation with the prayer to deduct the amount from salary cannot be said to be in compliance to the rules or as per its mandate. In view of above, if the petitioner has not been allowed to switch over to the pensionary benefit
scheme, action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence, it is
dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.5 Preety, Jr.P.A.
All cor r ect ion s m ade in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.
Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the denial of pensionary benefits was illegal given the petitioner's default in depositing gratuity and bonus along with interest.
Whether a representation praying for deduction of amount from salary complies with the mandate of the Pension Rules for opting for pensionary benefits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghuveer Singh Sahiwal & Ors.
RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr.
M.N. BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
