Pareek v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

: Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel with Ms. Jyotsana Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/08/2025

1. While challenging the order dated 13.05.2002, whereby the petitioner has been compulsory retired in exercise of powers under Clause 18-D(1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short 'the Standing Orders of 1965'), it has been submitted that the minimum requirement as per the aforesaid Clause 18-D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 has not been followed for the reason that on the date of issuance of order dated 13.05.2002 neither the [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (2 of 8) [CW-2323/2011] petitioner completed service of 25 years nor did he attain age of 50 years, hence, the order has been passed in flagrant violation of the enabling rule and is without jurisdiction.

2. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of petitioner is 15.01.1955 and his date of initial appointment was 28.09.1975. Impugned order of compulsory retirement has been issued on 13.05.2002. Thus, admittedly on the date of passing of order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner did not attain the age of 50 years.

3. So far as question of completing 25 years of service, which is one of the essential requirement of passing order under Clause 18-D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been paid gratuity by considering his qualifying services of 23 years 7 months and 16 days. Thus, by their action as well as specific order, the respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioner did not complete 25 years of qualifying service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that order of compulsory retirement under Clause 18-D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 is not a punishment and the concerned employee is entitled for post retiral benefits only in those circumstances, where he has rendered the qualifying services for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. In the instant case, order dated 13.05.2002 has been issued at pre-mature stage before completing 25 years of qualifying services and before attaining age of 50 years by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ghasi Lal [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (3 of 8) [CW-2323/2011] Pareek Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2568/2003) decided on

04.05.2017.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemenlty opposed the writ petition and stated that in the instant case, the service of the petitioner is to be counted from his initial date of appointment i.e. 28.09.1975 and thus, till date of passing of order of compulsory retirement dated 13.05.2002, he had completed service of 26 years 7 months and 16 days. In this regard, indulgence of this Court has been sought over Annex.3 in which total service of the petitioner has been calculated as shown as 26 years 7 months and 16 days. Learned counsel further submits that merely on account of the fact that for the purpose of grant of gratuity, lesser period than 25 years has been taken into consideration, would not provide a ground to the petitioner to challenge order of compulsory retirement. The language of Clause 18-D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 is totally unambiguous and it is to be read as it is.

6. In the aforesaid provision the terms used is not 'qualifying service' and the requirement of the rule is that the concerned employee has completed 25 years of service. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has completed more than 26 years of service by the date of passing of order of compulsory retirement. Hence, on such technical ground by misleading the provision, the petitioner cannot be allowed the challenge the order of compulsory retirement.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (4 of 8) [CW-2323/2011] Court in case of Ladhu Ram Verma & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1797/2000) decided on 26.04.2024.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the record.

9. Clause 18-D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 reads as under:- 18D(1) Compulsory Retirement "Notwithstanding anything contained in the regulation the Corporation, may, if is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the corporation to do so, have the absolute right to retire any corporation employee after he has attained the age of 50 years or on the date he completes 25 years of service whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter, by giving him 3 months, notice in writing or three months pay and allowance in lieu thereof."

10. Thus, bare reading of the aforesaid provision infers that fundamentally the concerned employee, was to be considered for the purpose of compulsory retirement, must have completed 25 years of service or attaining 50 years of age.

11. The question involved in the instant case is that as to whether the quota 25 years of service mentioned in Clause 18- D(1) refers to 25 years of qualifying service of total length of service irrespective of any break in service not enabling the concerned employee to seek retiral benefits.

12. In case of Ghasi Lal Pareek (Supra) also the very question arose in the consideration of this Court and vide judgment dated 04.05.2017, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (5 of 8) [CW-2323/2011] It would be appropriate to quote Clause "10. 18D(1) & 18D(2) of the Standing Orders, 1965 which provide as under:- “18D(1) Compulsory Retirement: Notwithstanding anything contained in the regulation the corporation, may if is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so have the absolute right to retire any Corporation employee after he has attained the age of 50 years or on the date he completes 25 years of service which ever is earlier, or on any date there after, by giving him 3 months, notice in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu there of. 18D(2) Voluntary Retirement: Notwithstanding anything contained here in before Corporation employee may after giving three months previous notice in writing, retire from the service on the date on which he completes 20 years service on the date he attains the age of 45 years or on any other date there after. Note: The period of service rendered in the State Govt. as well as in the Corporation by such an employee shall be counted while accounting the period of 25 years service under above provisions only if the pension contribution is paid by the State Govt. of the employee.” The respondent-Corporation

11. Resolution No.33/89 has approved the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 which were brought into force vide order dt.02/01/1990 Regulation 11 of the Pension Regulations of 1989 lays down ‘Conditions of Qualifications’ and Regulation 12 of the Pension Regulations of 1989 lays down ‘Corporations power to declare any service as qualifying service.’ Regulations 11 & 12 of Pension Regulations, 1989 provide as under:- “11. Conditions of Qualification :- The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless it confirms to the following conditions: First – the service must be under the corporation Second-the employment substantive/permanent/temporary and officiating capacity. may be

12. Corporations Power to declare any service as qualifying Service:- Corporation may, however declare that any specified kind of Service or service rendered by a Corporation employee shall qualify for pension subject to such conditions as the Corporation may think fit to impose.” [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (6 of 8) [CW-2323/2011]

12. Regulation 16 of the Pensino Regulations, 1989 lays down ‘Rules for Reckoning Service’ and Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1989 provides for ‘Optional retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service.’ Under Regulation 23 of the Pension Regulations, 1989 it has been provided as under:- “23. Compulsory Retirement after completion of 25 years service :- The appointing authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Corporation employee by giving him at least three months previous notice in writing from service, on the date of which he complete 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier or on any date thereafter. Provided that such Corporation employee may be retired from service forthwith, and on such retirement from service the Corporation employee shall be entitled to claim three month pay and allowances in lieu of notice.” Thus, the word used in Pension 13. Regulations, 1989, is ‘Qualifying Service” while under Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965, the word used is “service”. However, there is a note appended while introducing Clause 18D(1) and 18D(2) which relates to service only when the pension contribution is paid. Thus, the word “service”, as mentioned in Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965, has to be read as service which is sufficient to retire a person and which is qualifying for the purpose of pension. The same, therefore, cannot be considered as mathematical counting of service of 25 years as has been done by the respondents. Thus, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner has not completed 25 years of service which can be said to be qualifying service for the purpose of pension, retiring him compulsorily, is of no use as the retirement envisages a person to be entitled for pension and it cannot be treated as a punishment of removing a person from service or terminating him as has been held in the case of Union of India Vs. J.N. Sinha (supra) and further affirmed in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another: (supra). 14. From a look at the order dt.25/03/2000 it would be seen that the narration of the order itself [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (7 of 8) [CW-2323/2011] says that “Whereas Shri Ghasilal Pareek, Booking Clerk, Dausa Depot, Jaipur has completed 25 years of qualifying service/has attained the age of 50 years.” Thus, before passing of compulsory retirement order, the respondents were required to have ascertained whether the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service. Admittedly, the petitioner had only completed 23 years 3 months and 6 days service. Alternatively, had the petitioner completed 15. 50 years of age, he could have been compulsorily retired even if he had not completed 25 years of qualifying service but admittedly, the petitioner’s date of birth is 30th April, 1951 and he completed only 48 years 10 months and 25 days as on 25/03/2000 and therefore, the order of compulsory retirement dt.25/03/2000 is defective and vitiated in law. 16. In view thereof, the order of compulsory retirement dt.25/03/2000 is quashed and set aside being contrary to the provisions contained under Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965 and Clause 23 of the Pension Regulations, 1989 which govern the service conditions of the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including actual wages in view of the law laid down in the case of J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India & anr.: (1998)9 SCC 559. Since the compulsory retirement is a method of forcefully denying an individual to perform his duties, once the order is set aside, such an action would amount to termination of service and hence the person would be entitled for complete back wages for the intervening period."

13. Thus, it is abundantly clear that in the aforesaid judgment of the Ghasi Lal Pareek (Supra), this Court has already interpreted of terms 'service' as 'qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Admittedly, in the instant case the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner was 23 years 7 months and 16 days, which is less than necessary requirement of 25 years of service, hence, the aforesaid judgment of Ghasi Lal Pareek (Supra) squarely covers the controversy of the instant case. [2025:RJ-JP:32128] (8 of 8) [CW-2323/2011]

14. The judgment of Ladhu Ram Verma (Supra) relied upon by the respondents is based upon consideration of merits and record of the concerned employee while considering the validity of order of compulsory retirement. Since, in the instant case, the order has been passed at pre-mature stage without following any essential requirement of completing the minimum qualifying service, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents is not at all attracted.

15. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 13.05.2002 as well as appellate order dated 24.09.2010 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits which may be sanctioned and released within a period of three months from the date of receipt certified copy of this order. DIVYA /30 (ANAND SHARMA),J