CW 952/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.952/2006 Mumtaz Ali Versus Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd & Ors. Date of Order ::: 10/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Amin Ali, for petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Singhal, for respondents. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite having completed qualifying service, he was deprived of pension in terms of RSEB Pension Regulation, 1988 which was made applicable w.e.f.28/11/1988. Petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages basis as Helper Gr.II on 31/10/1977 and was declared semi-permanent vide order dt. 11/09/1978 w.e.f.12/08/1978. While discharging his duties as Helper Gr.II, he met with an accident causing amputation of his both the hands on 31/08/1985 – as a result whereof, was retired from service w.e.f.19/05/1989 on the premise that medical Board has declared him to be medically unfit & incapacitated to discharge his official duties vide order dt.31/07/1991. From the date of his appointment, certainly petitioner completed qualifying service prescribed for pension purposes but when respondents failed to grant terminal benefits, he CW 952/06 //2// has approached this Court by way of instant petition. However, in the reply, it has not been disputed by respondents that petitioner is not covered under Regulation, 1988; but their objection is that since he has not completed 10 years qualifying service for pension purpose, that dis-entitles him to claim pension under Rules. Along with reply, document (Ann.R.1) has been produced to show that petitioner was fixed in regular establishment from 01/04/1980 and was discharged from service from 19/05/89, as per which respondents computed his total period of service as 8 years 11 months & 21 days and accordingly did not consider to grant pension under Regulations, 1988. Counsel for respondents submits that only after appointment in regular establishment, petitioner was to be considered as an employee in terms of Reg.3(i) of Pension Regulations, 1988; and his services rendered prior thereto cannot be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of computation of pension. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This Court has occasioned to consider under Rajasthan Service Rules as to whether services rendered by daily wage employee can be taken note of as qualifying service for CW 952/06 //3// pension purposes and in Ismail Khan Vs. State (1986 RLR p.24), it was held that even daily wage employee continuously working in services of State is certainly entitled for computation of his services as qualifying for pension U/r 179 RSR. In instant case, indisputably petitioner initially joined service as Helper Gr.II on daily wages on 31/10/77 and was declared semi-permanent vide order dt.11/09/78 w.e.f. 12/08/1978 and stood retired from service only because of incapacitated to discharge official duties w.e.f. 19/05/89 vide order dt.31/07/1991 on account of an accident having taken place in course of his discharge of official duties as Helper Gr.II and certainly retirement could not have been given retrospective effect, particularly when he was in service of respondents upto date of order of retirement dt. 31/07/91. Even otherwise also, w.e.f.12/08/78, he was declared semi-permanent, he completed ten years' qualifying service on 19/05/89 from the date, his retirement was given retrospective effect to vide order dt.31/07/91, that too also makes him entitled, for computation of his ten years' service as qualifying for pension purposes. As regards respondent's submission about petitioner having become an employee in regular establishment on 01/04/80, and his services prior thereto cannot be considered as qualifying service CW 952/06 //4// for pension purposes, is of no substance for the reason that eligibility of an employee covered under Reg.3(i) of Regulations, 1988 is to be looked into on the date of retirement (31/07/91), and that certainly makes him eligible and entitled for computation of pension under Regulations, 1988. Before parting with the order, this Court however, likes to point out that the circumstances in which petitioner stood retired being medically unfit and incapacitated to discharge his official duties, indisputably only because of amputation of his both the hands in an accident having taken place in course of performance of official duties, ought to have been sympathetically considered by respondents while computing his pension and respondent ought not to have denied the pension on mere technicalities. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.29/04/03 (Ann.5) is hereby quashed & set aside. While holding the petitioner entitled for pension, respondents directed to compute arrears of pension and pay to the petitioner alongwith 9% per annum from the date of order of his retirement (31/07/91) till actual payment. Compliance be made within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/952CW06-10Fb.doc