1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 41/1998 Smt. Rehmat Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 23.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr S.D. Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr K.K. Bissa, for the respondents. ... The petitioner, presently an old lady of about 86 years, by this petition for writ is giving challenge to validity correctness and propriety of an order dated 10.6.1997 passed by the Collector, Bikaner exercising powers under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Pension Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1958). The factual background giving rise to present cause is that the petitioner by way of filing an application under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 before the Collector, Bikaner claimed for pension being widow of late Sh. Subhan Khan, who stood retired from services of the Department of Water Works, Government of Rajasthan on 30.6.1974. The application aforesaid came to be accepted on 31.10.1991 declaring late Sh. Subhan Khan entitled for pensionary benefits. A direction was given accordingly to the respondents for making payment of pension to the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid to late Sh. Subhan Khan against contributory provident fund. A review petition preferred to review and recall the order dated 31.01.1991 also came to be rejected by the 2 Collector, Bikaner on 8.12.1993. Because of non-compliance of the directions given by the Collector, Bikaner on 31.10.1991 the petitioner preferred an application to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and also claiming payment of amount due relating to pension. At the time of adjudication of the application aforesaid a statement was made by Government Advocate that entire pension case of the petitioner has already been sent to the State Government, and therefore, there was no need to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the statement given by learned Government Advocate the Collector, Bikaner by the order dated 3.8.1995 rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings. Despite specific statement given by Government Advocate compliance of the directions given by the Collector, Bikaner on 31.10.1991 while deciding an application preferred under Section 4 of the Act of 1958, no action was taken by the respondents relating to grant of pension to the petitioner. Thus, she again approached Collector, Bikaner as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1958 to make payment of pension. The Collector, Bikaner by its order dated 19.6.1997 declared that late Sh. Subhan Khan was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and as such, he was not entitled for receiving pension. The application preferred under Section 6 of the Act of 1958 was dismissed accordingly. 3 While challenging the order dated 19.6.1997 the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that entitlement of receiving pension by late Sh. Subhan Khan and by the present petitioner being widow of late Sh. Subhan Khan was already settled by the Collector, Bikaner as per provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 vide order dated 31.10.1991, and as such, while deciding an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1958 it was not open for the Collector, Bikaner to de-settle the rights already determined. It is also asserted that as a matter of fact the entire issue relating to grant of pension to the petitioner was adjudicated by the Collector, Bikaner under the order dated 31.10.1991, and thereafter, a review petition preferred by the respondents came to be rejected on 8.12.1993. An application for initiating proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was rejected by the Collector, Bikaner on basis of a statement given by Government Advocate that adequate steps were already taken for making payment of pension, as such, it was not open for the Collector, Bikaner to re- adjudicate the question regarding entitlement of the petitioner to receive pension. As per reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner's husband Sh. Subhan Khan retired from service on 19.11.1991 being a work-charged employee, and as such, as per provisions of Rule 168 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 he was 4 not entitled for receiving pension. Accordingly, the Collector, Bikaner vide the order dated 19.6.1997 rightly held that no pension could have been granted to the petitioner or her husband late Sh. Subhan Khan. Heard counsel for the parties. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 provides that any person having a claim relating to any such pension or grant may prefer such claim to the Collector of the District Collector or other Officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government and as such Collector or other Officer shall dispose of such claim in accordance with such Rules as the State Government may from time to time prescribed in this behalf. The petitioner being widow of late Sh. Subhan Khan raised a claim for pension against the services rendered by her husband. Her claim was accepted by the Collector under an order dated 31.10.1991. A review petition preferred by the Government to challenge the order dated 31.10.1991 also came to be rejected on 8.12.1993. A contempt petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Collector, Bikaner on basis of a statement given by Government Advocate that case of the petitioner for grant of pension was pending consideration before the State Government after remission of the same by the Department concerned. Despite the statement aforesaid no pension was paid to the petitioner, thus, she moved an application under Section 6 of the Act of 5 1958 to execute the order made under Section 4 of the Act. As per Section 6 of the Act of 1958 all pensions or grants of money are required to be paid by the Collector or other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf subject to such Rule as may from time to time being made by the State Government. After determination of the petitioner's right to receive pension being widow of late Sh. Subhan Khan it was not at all open for the Collector, Bikaner to re-adjudicate the same issue. If the respondents had any grievance regarding the order dated 31.10.1991 then they should have availed appropriate remedy to challenge that but in any case the Collector, Bikaner was having no authority to redetermine the issue which was already adjudicated much back in the year 1991. As a matter of fact on basis of the doctrine of res judicata it was not open for the Collector, Bikaner to re-adjudicate the issue that was directly involved and settled between the parties in earlier proceedings those culminated into order dated 31.10.1991. The Collector, while adjudicating the application under Section 6 of the Act of 1958 should have kept himself confine only to settle mode of payment of pension to the petitioner. By the order impugned dated 19.6.1997 the Collector, Bikaner exceeded jurisdiction vested with it by redetermining the issue relating to claim of the petitioner for pension. 6 In view of discussion above, the order impugned is apparently bad, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.6.1997 passed by the Collector, Bikaner is quashed. The respondents are directed to make compliance of the order dated 31.10.1991 expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '