1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.941/2006 Dr.Bhanwarlal Solanki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M.Lodha, Additional Advocate General. .... This matter came up for orders on an application for early hearing. While considering the same, with the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. For remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty, the petitioner was subjected to a penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect under an order dated 28.2.2000. The period in which the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly was treated as break in service. Subsequently, as per the provisions of Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) the petitioner was permitted to avail voluntary retirement under an order dated 13.3.2002 w.e.f. 31.3.2002. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have forfeited entire service rendered by him prior to the interruption and are not giving pension to him for the period aforesaid. As per the petitioner the period of interruption in service is required to be ignored for calculating pension, but the period of service prior to interruption cannot be forfeited. In reply to the writ petition it is stated that by an order dated 9.10.2000 the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur interpreted the break in service as forfeiture of earlier services and, therefore, the petitioner was treated as re-employed in service from 5.2.1997, the date on which the petitioner resumed service after remaining unauthorisedly absent. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner admittedly after serving the respondents as Junior Eye Specialist for a period of about 22 years remained absent from duties from 1.5.1992 to 15.7.1992 and thereafter from 19.7.1992 to 4.2.1997 and for that period of unauthorised absence he suffered a penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the period of absence was treated as break in service. The order imposing penalty nowhere mentions that the break in 3 service shall amount to forfeiture of the past services also. As a consequent to the interruption in service for the period of unauthorised absence the petitioner shall not be entitled to get pay for the period aforesaid and also for getting the period aforesaid counted for any service benefit including the pension, however, the interruption of service in any manner cannot be interpreted as forfeiture of the entire past services and re-employment from the date of rejoining. The order of penalty itself is quite clear and it treats the period of unauthorised absence as interruption in service only, it nowhere mentions for forfeiture of past services. It is only the order dated 9.10.2000 wherein the Chief Medical & Health Officer interpreted the interruption in service as forfeiture of past service and that is apparently erroneous. The period aforesaid is dias-non and on that count past service could not have been forfeited. It is also relevant to note ,that if the stand of the respondents regarding forfeiture of past services is treated correct, then there was no occasion for accepting the request for voluntary retirement also. The petitioner, if he be treated as re-employed in service on 5.2.1997, then he was not eligible to be considered for voluntary retirement on 31.3.1992 being neither of 50 years nor he completed 15 years of services on that day. The respondents accepted voluntary retirement of the petitioner by 4 taking into consideration the earlier services rendered by him, meaning thereby, the interruption in service was not at all treated as forfeiture of the past services. For the reasons stated above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in continuous employment from the date of his initial appointment to the date of voluntary retirement i.e. 31.3.2002 with exclusion of the period of interruption in service, accordingly, they are directed to release the pension and all other post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from today. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.