1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1843/2008. (BANSHI LAL VS. STATE) DATE OF ORDER : 19.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. L.L. Sharma for the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as Malaria Survelance Worker with respondents on 08.05.1961. The petitioner applied for two days casual leave, but failed to report thereafter on duties. After a lapse of about three decades, he submitted a representation claiming pensionary benefits by treating himself retired from service on achieving the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. The representation aforesaid stood was rejected, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitoner was never relieved from services, therefore, he should have been treated in employment up to the date of his superannuation and, therefore, he is entitled for pensionary benefits. In alternative, it is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner served the respondents for a term of 9 years and 8 months, thus, as per the provisions of Rules 256 and 257 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 he is 2 entitled for pension. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in 2006(6) RDD 3150 (Raj.) Having considered the arguments advanced, I am of the view that the respondents rightly denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioner as from facts, it is apparent that since 02.01.1971, the petitioner never approached to the respondents and, thus, he abondoned the service. The alternative argument advanced too is having no force, as the provisions of Rules of 256 and 257 relates to the family pension and death-cum-retiral gratuity. The case Kamla Verma (supra) is related to the grant of family pension to a widow of a government servant, who died without completing 10 years of qualifying service and for that she was held entitled as per the provisions of Rule 256 and 257 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The provisions aforesaid are not applicable for regular pension. In view of whatever discussed above, this petition for writ having no merits and same, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/