1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R Smt. Radha Devi V/s Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4755/2000) Date of Order :: November 16, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr. S.R. Surana for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondents BY THE COURT; Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, widow of late Shri Badri Singh, who was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, has preferred this writ petition, inter-alia, with the grievance that certain retiral benefits have not been given to her husband and the benefit of selection scale on completition of 9 &18 years' services has also not been been granted to him. Petitioner has also claimed that the amount of gratuity, Provident Fund and leave encashment have also 2 not been paid to her after the death of her husband. A brief reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and thereafter two additional affidavits were submitted by them, first on 23rd November, 2007, upon which the petitioner also filed counter affidavit on 3rd February, 2008 and to counter the contention of the petitioner, giving calculations in the additional affidavit, the respondent submitted yet another additional affidavit along with certain documents . It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband was in service at the time of his death. He was appointed on the post of Conductor on 22nd February, 1974. His services were terminated vide order dated 24th December, 1982. He challenged the said termination order by filing Civil Suit No. 482/87 (305/87), which came to be decreed by the Trial Court in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 5th December, 1989 and the order of termination of service of the petitioner's husband was set aside, holding it to be illegal and ineffective as being passed in violation of the principles 3 of natural justice. The respondents preferred Regular Civil First Appeal No. 14/90, wherein the finding of the trial Court with respect to the illegality in the order of termination of services of the petitioner's husband dated 24th December, 1982, was maintained. However, the Appellate Court held that since the petitioner's husband approached the Court after delay, therefore, reinstatement in service shall be effective from 21st February, 1987. However, just above the operative part of the judgment of the appellate Court, it has been held that the petitioner's husband shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. This judgment of the appellate Court has attained finality and the petitioner's husband had already been reinstated in service and he was made to retire w.e.f. 30th June, 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the additional affidavit dated 23rd November, 1997 filed by the respondents, no dispute survive with respect to the entitlement of retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband. It appears that an amount of Rs. 1969/- 4 towards due P.L. has been paid through voucher dated 23rd October, 1996; G.P.F. amount of Rs. 24371/- has been paid to the present petitioner on 12th February, 1988; Bonus amounting to Rs. 3624 has been paid to the petitioner on 3rd September, 2004. That apart, arrears of salary after pay fixation including annual grade increment amounting to Rs. 39115 has also been paid to the present petitioner on 13th September, 2004. It is mentioned that this arrear was calculated w.e.f. 21st February, 1997 up to the date of retirement of the petitioner's husband. Pension arrears amounting to Rs. 1,86,232 has been paid to the petitioner on 24th October, 2005 and finally, the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 13702/- has been paid to the petitioner on 5th September, 2005. Copies of relevant documents have been placed on record.by the respondents. Petitioner submitted counter affidavit, pointing out several items, about which the petitioner claims that payment of retiral benefits accrued to her husband has not been paid. The respondents then filed additional affidavit and along with that affidavit, submitted some more documents to show 5 that certain leave of the petitioner's husband were treated to be leave without pay and treating those leave without pay, orders were passed on 7th May, 2004. In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that so far as entitlement of pension and retiral benefits to the employee and thereafter to the petitioner is no more in dispute. The only dispute is with respect to quantification of the amount with the claims of the petitioner as regards benefit of continuity of the service of the petitioner's husband in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court , wherein the Civil Court held that the employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, whereas the respondents' contention is that the petitioner was on leave without pay. It is not in dispute that the order declaring the petitioner's husband on leave without pay was passed as late as on 7th May, 2004, whereas the petitioner's husband retired on 30th June, 1996. Therefore, apparently the order declaring the petitioner's husband on leave without pay was passed after 8 years of his retirement and even after 8 years of his 6 death. Thus, in view of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioner's husband was entitled to all consequential benefits, which includes all service benefits and for the purpose of counting the length of service for the purpose of grant of pension, the entire service should have been taken into account by the respondents. Further more he respondents have not given any opportunity to the petitioner's husband before declaring him on leave without pay and, therefore, the respondents were not tneititled to treat the leave as leave without pay. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed to re-calculate the retiral benefits of the petitioner. While doing so, the respondents shall also take into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition on 13th February, 2008, wherein the petitioner has pointed out some items for which payments have not been made. Entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certgified copy of this order and payments be made to the petitioner within two months thereafter. 7 The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs. (Prakash Tatia),J.