STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors. v. O.P. GUPTA

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 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS v. O.P. GUPTA 323

1.2 It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State. May be there was a delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition, however, it is well settled that the laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relief under Article 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 this case, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner is claiming pension, which is a life long benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints. It is settled law that 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. [Paras 26, 27, 28][328-F-H; 329-A-B]