IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6017/1998 Gulab Chand Jain vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 24/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Tanveer Ahmed for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order Annexure-7 dated 10.11.1994 and Annexure-9 dated 12.12.1996 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 9.3.1990, the date on which the Sahu Nagar, Higher Secondary School was taken over by the Government. The petitioner was working in the said school as Headmaster. It was a private school and the Government by its order dated 9.1.1990 took control of the same with all its liabilities and assets. Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was allowed to continue for more than three months and therefore he would be deemed to have retired as a government servant. The respondents are therefore under an obligation to pay to him pension and other retiral benefits just like any other government employee. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that although the petitioner was working as headmaster in the private school which was taken over by the government but the fact is that the petitioner had already attained the age of 58 years in 1988 because his date of birth is 9.1.1930. The school was taken over by the Government on 9.3.1990 and thus on that date the petitioner had already crossed the upper age limit in the government service, therefore, he could not be paid any salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation of 58 years as on the date on which the school was taken over. In fact, the petitioner had crossed the aforesaid age two months before the school was taken over by the respondents. In such like situation, even if the petitioner was allowed to work on extension by the management of the private school for some time after the school was taken over, the extension by itself would not entitle him for grant of pension because a government servant under the rules even otherwise is liable to be retired on the age of 58 years. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that contributory provident fund of the petitioner was withheld by the respondents for a period of six years because they were ceased of the matter to decide whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to receive pension. This payment was released to the petitioner only after such decision was taken by the respondent by order dated 12.12.1996. This fact is stated by the petitioner in para 4. The respondents however have not disputed this fact. However, it is not clear whether the amount was kept in the provident fund account of the petitioner all this time or otherwise retained by the respondent. The respondents shall verify the fact that if the amount has not earned interest for the period of six years in the provident fund amount and was retained otherwise, the petitioner shall be paid interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay on the aforesaid amount. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/