CW -2899/1996 -Bagdu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.13.10.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2899/1996 Bagdu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 13th October, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Bheem Arora for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Government Advocate. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of compulsory retirement Annex.1 dated 18th June, 1996 passed under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service of patwari, a non-gazetted post after giving 3 months notice to him. This Court on 16.9.1996 stayed the impugned order. The petitioner was 53 years of age in the year 1996 when this writ petition was filed and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by now he has retired from service upon achieving the age of superannuation. 3. Mr. Bheem Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ratan Lal Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. - 1996(2)SLR 497 dealing with a similar controversy has held that in view of the circular dated 22.8.1990 issued by the State Government the Rule 244(2) of the RSR could be invoked at that time only qua the gazetted Government servants and not against the Government servant belonging to subordinate services. Para 10 of the said judgment is quoted below :- CW -2899/1996 -Bagdu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.13.10.08 2/3 “10. We have noticed earlier that but for the Circular dated 23.4.1990 it could not have been possible for the Government to give effect to Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The circular was treated as part of Rule 244(2). The subsequent Circular dated 22.8.90 appears to be an addition to the Circular dated 23.4.90 and the decision taken in the Circular dated 22.8.90 to initiate for the present, action under Rule 244(2) in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only was a policy of the Government and not a mere clarification. A careful reading of all the three paragraphs leaves no doubt that for reasons best known to the Government, they have decided to restrict the operation of Rule 244 (2) in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only. If that be so, the Orders compulsorily retiring the appellants cannot be sustained. The argument held that it is only clarificatory, cannot be accepted in view of the clear language employed in the Circular dated 22.8.90 stating that at present action under Rule 244(2) Rajasthan Service Rule is to be initiated in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only.” 4. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order Annex.1 cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the State Government is not in a position to either controvert the legal position as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case nor otherwise in a position to support the impugned order. CW -2899/1996 -Bagdu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.13.10.08 3/3 5. Having heard learned counsel and in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court apparently the impugned order Annex.1 dated 18th June, 1996 cannot be sustained. Moreover, since the petitioner having remained in service in pursuance of the stay order passed by this Court in the year 1996 and having retired from the service, this Court does not consider it expedient to go into the merit of the impugned order any more. 6. Consequently this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annex.1 dated 18th June, 1996 is quashed. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.16 babulal/-