R.K. AGRAWAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

R.K. AGRAWAL. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHA TIERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Pension-Qualifying service-Computation of-Delay in grant of 
pension-Claim for interest-Held, since High Court has not considered the C 
relevance of certain provisions of the Rules, relied upon by the parties, the 
impugned judgment is set aside and matter remitted to it for consideration 
afresh. 
Respondent No. 1, in Civil Appeal No. 8127 of2004 filed a writ petition D 
before the High Court for a direction to the State of Rajasthan to pay him 
pension for the period 26.7.1979 to 22.7.1982. The writ petition was allowed, 
but his prayer for interest on delayed amount of pension was not acceded to. 
Aggrieved, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No. 8128 of2004 and the 
pensioner filed Civil Appeal No. 8127 of2004. 
It was contended before this Court that the pensioner in his writ petition 
before the High Court raised a plea for grant of pro-rota pension admissible 
to him in terms of Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, but the High 
Court has not rendered any finding thereon. Similarly, the High Court also 
E 
not considered the relevance of Rules 13, 17 and 18 of the Rajasthan Service 
Rules, which plea was specifically raised by the State Government. It was F 
contended that the pensioner could not claim pension for the period 26.7.1979 
to 22.7.1982 nor the said period could be counted for qualifying service. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Since several important issues have not been decided by the High G 
Court, the judgment impugned in thest: two appeals is set aside and the matter 
is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the same afresh. The High Court 
has also not considered the delay of 20 years in giving the pension and pro-
rata benefits. If the delay is attributable to the Government, the pensioner is 
207 
H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A always entitled for the interest. The High Court would consider this point 
also with reference to the pleadings raised by the parties on this count. 
[211-B-C) 
Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in 
Public Enterprises & Anr. v. Arvind Verma & Ors., AIR (1998) SC 2863; and 
B P. V. Sundara Rajan & Anr. v. Union of India, JT (2000) 5 SC 175, held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8128 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-10-2002 of the High Court of 
C Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 
540/1999. 
N. Prabhakar, Rajesh Srivastava, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary and Manish 
Kumar Chaudhary for the appearing Parties. 
D · 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The State ofRajasthan is the appellant in 
Civil Appeal No. 8127/2004. The said appeal was filed by the State ofRajasthan 
'questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 30.10.2002 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B. 
E Civil Writ Petition No. 540/1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the contesting 
respondent (R.K. A_grawal) had been allowed and directions had been issued 
to the State to pay to the respondent pension for the period commencing 26th 
July, 1979 to 22nd July, 1982. According to the State, the "'espondent was not 
serving the State Government during that period and, therefore, he is not 
F 
entitled for pension for the said period. 
The Civil Appeal No. 8128 of2004 was filed by the first respondent in 
C.A. No. 8127 /2004 questioning the correctness of the judgment of the High 
Court insofar as the non-grant of interest to the contesting respondent. 
According to the first respondent Mr. R.K. Agrawal, the High Court has failed 
G to appreciaL that the delay caused by the appellants are more than 20 years 
in the payment of pension and/or pro-rata benefits to the first respondent was 
without any fault of the first respondent and as such the first respondent was 
entitled to interest and damages thereon. The first respondent has claim~ 
18% interest per annum for the non payment. 
H 
This apart, the first respondent herein and the appellant in CA No. 8128/ 
( 
.. 
R.K. AGRA WAL v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN [ LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
209 
2004, in his writ petition before the High Court, has specifically raised in A 
paragraph 7 for the grant of pro-rata pension admissible to him in terms of 
Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.