1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 7704 of 2008 SHAITAN SINGH V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. RAJESH JOSHI } Mr. MANOJ BOHRA }, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 27.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have gone through the order of the learned Tribunal so also the documents available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is getting pension for the services rendered by him from the initial appointment till he is seeking voluntary retirement in 1991. Then, it was only in view of Annexure 1 that he was given fresh appointment and has retired again on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner seeks to claim another set of pension for the services rendered consequent upon the reappointment. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on number of hearings and it appeared to the 2 Tribunal that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. That apart, the learned Tribunal also examined the material available on record and found the reply filed by the employer exhaustive and covers all the important points mentioned in the OA. We have gone through the reply also. The relevant rules in this regard, which was produced by the employer as Annexure R/1 before the Tribunal, clearly stipulate that such re-employment shall not entitle to a separate pension or gratuity, for the period of his re-employment. It appears thus, that the Tribunal found the petition without any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of this clause (2) of Rule 7 being discriminatory. We have considered the submissions and find no infirmity in the provisions, inasmuch as, in the very nature of things, an employee cannot be conceeded a right to receive more than one set of pension and/or retiral/terminal benefits, simply because, after having sought voluntary retirement, for reasons considered as appropriate by the employer, an option was given, making it permissible to get re-employment . When the petitioner is already receiving one set of pension, which is said to be 3 full pension, consequent upon the services rendered by him for more than 30 years, he cannot be said to be entitled for second set of pension and gratuity etc. Thus, considering the case from all standpoints, we find no force in the writ petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Aditya/