STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS versus O.P. GUPTA

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 19-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
v.
O.P. GUPTA
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16734 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Respondent was initially appointed
in 1967 as Assistant Charge Man in the Rajasthan Agriculture
Engineering Board from where his services were transferred to the
Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, where he worked till
12th April 1977 – Respondent resigned from Rajasthan State Agro
Industry Corporation to take up appointment as Assistant Director
(Agro-Industries) in the Department of Industries in the State of
Rajasthan, after being selected through the RPSC – High Court
held that service rendered by respondent/writ petitioner prior to
resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation
should be counted for the purpose of pension – Held: There can be
no doubt that resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past
service – However, sub-rule (2) of r.25 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 carves out an exception – The said
sub-rule clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take
up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under
the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service –
Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-
Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro
Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the
State of Rajasthan – Respondent having retired after working for
about 26 years, the State cannot raise the question of proof of prior
permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had
been made through the RPSC to a Government post – It is to be
presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary
could be established by the State  – High Court rendered a just
decision based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the
Rules applied to the admitted facts on record.  The interpretation
given by the High Court to Rule 25(2) of the Rules is a plausible
interpretation.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 321
321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Constitution of India: The State is bound by the fundamental
rights of its employees under Arts.14 to 16 of the Constitution of
India – It is now well settled that arbitrariness violates the right to
equality under Arts.14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Writ jurisdiction: Relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of
India being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse
to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part
of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if
granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – In the instant
case, although there was a delay of six years in filing the writ petition,
however, the laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – Respondent-Writ
Petitioner is claiming pension, which is a life long benefit – Denial
of pension is a continuing wrong – When financial rules framed by
the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more
interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that
interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There can be no doubt that resignation from
service may entail forfeiture of past service. However, sub-rule
(2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception. The said
sub-rule clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to
take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent,
under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service.
The Respondent was selected through the RPSC. He applied for
the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was
still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation,
which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan.
The Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years,
the Petitioner - State cannot raise the question of proof of prior
permission before resignation, more so when the appointment
had been made through the RPSC to a Government post. It is to
be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and
the application has been made through proper channel by
obtaining the requisite approvals. [Paras 23, 24, 25][328-B-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
1.2 It is to be presumed that prior permission had been
taken unless the contrary could 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.