[2025:RJ-JP:27650] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2353/2004 Mayendra Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Tripurari Lal Sharma, aged about 75 years, resident of 253, Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302018 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 3, Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 56. 2. The Director (Admn.) Pension, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 3, Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai- 56. 3. The State Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. 4. The Commissioner and Director (Industries), Uttar Pradesh Post Office Employment Exchange, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 24/07/2025 1. Heard counsel for both parties, perused the pleadings and documents available on record. 2. Instant Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner way back on 20.02.2004, raising a grievance of not counting period of services rendered by him in the Industries Department of U.P. Government w.e.f. 30.09.1952 to 05.03.1959 for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits to petitioner at the time of his retirement w.e.f. 30.11.1986 from the Office of State Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). 3. The claim of petitioner has been repelled by the respondents, stating inter alia, that the recruitment of petitioner in Khadi and Village Industries Commission, was a fresh recruitment and for the [2025:RJ-JP:27650] (2 of 3) [CW-2353/2004] services rendered by petitioner in KVIC, he has been paid pensionary benefits as per the applicable pension regulations in KVIC. It has been clarified that the Circular of the Central Government regarding Central Civil Service Pension Rules, were not followed by KVIC nor KVIC pension regulations were ever amended according to the Central Government Pension Rules, hence, the claim of petitioner to count his period of service at Industries Department of U.P. Government, as per Central Government Pension Rules, is bereft of merits. 4. It has also been contended by respondents that the service of petitioner in the Industries Department of U.P. Government was under a specific scheme and such period may not be counted to be in employment under any establishment of the Central Government. In support, reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhyan Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2002) 10 SCC 656] has been given wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the continuance/engagement of the appellants under a specific scheme, cannot be held to be an employee under any establishment of the Government. 5. Having considered the case of petitioner on merits, this Court finds that where petitioner could not establish his substantive right for counting the tenure of his service in the Industries Department of U.P. Government for the purpose of pensionary benefits released by KVIC. That apart petitioner himself did opt to be governed by “Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1984”. Hence, in that view of the matter, [2025:RJ-JP:27650] (3 of 3) [CW-2353/2004] the claim of petitioner, based on the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1986, was declined. In addition, representation submitted by the petitioner to claim such benefit has been rejected vide order dated 21.08.2003, which has been impugned herein. The order dated 21.08.2003 (Ann-7) envisages justified and rationale reasons to deny the counting of the service period of petitioner from 30.09.1952 to 05.03.1959 in the U.P. Government for his pensionary benefits. 6. This Court further finds that the pensionary benefits as per KVIC Regulations were released to petitioner way back on 14.09.1987, without counting the period of his service with U.P. Government whereas instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 20.02.2004, it means near about delay of 17 years. 7. As a final result, apart from delay, petitioner’s case is not liable to be succeeded on merits and the order impugned dated 21.08.2003 does not call for any interference. Once petitioner himself has not followed the terms and conditions of Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1986, in letter and spirit, his claim based on such Office Memorandum has rightly been denied. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /6