SBCWP No.1053/05. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1053/2005. Late Smt.Mangi Devi through LRs Vs. The Municipal Corporation Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : 24/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Nishant Vyas for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Sharma for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming benefit of pension. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was made to resign from service and in her case, appointment was given to her daughter-in-law Manju but benefit of pension has still not been given to her whereas, in other two identical cases, pension was granted. Reference was made of the person namely; Hariya whose application for resignation was accepted vide order dated 25/6/1991 and in his place her daughter-in-law Sheela Devi was given appointment. This Haria was granted pension vide Pension Payment Order vide order dated 18/11/2004. Similarly, it is asserted by the petitioner in rejoinder that one Smt.Arjun Sweeper of Ward No.2 and 3 also resigned voluntarily and in her case, her son Omprakash was appointed as Sweeper. She too was granted pension. These facts have been stated by the SBCWP No.1053/05. 2 petitioner in the rejoinder which was filed way back 22/5/2007 to which the respondents did not deny. Learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.6103/2000) decided on 27/5/2004 wherein Sweeper was made to resign on the ground of illness and on the premise of his absence, his services were forfeited whereas, on the length of service rendered by him, qualified the voluntary retirement, he was directed to be given pensionary benefits. This writ petition is only for retiral benefits to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is delay of 14 years. Petitioner has expired on 16/2/2010 and petitioner is now represented by her legal representatives. This writ petition even otherwise is liable to be dismissed because as per claim of the respondents, appointment to the daughter-in-law was given only when she has resigned in her place. She cannot be paid any pensionary benefits. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service with the respondents and thus qualified for voluntary retirement. The word 'resignation' was used by her in application, that technicality cannot be a reason now to deny the benefit of pension because in identical two cases of Hariya and Smt.Arjun, respondents granted benefit of pension therefore, same SBCWP No.1053/05. 3 benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. However, delay may be a question of deciding whether the interest should be awarded on the pension or not. The respondents cannot be allowed to practice discrimination against the petitioner because in the case of other similarly situated persons, they have granted the benefit of pension despite appointment given to their family members also under the same scheme. Such an action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to compute the pension of the petitioner from the date of retirement till she died and grant the same to her legal representatives. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil