[2025:RJ-JP:17069-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 361/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Regional Sanskrit Education Officer, Churu. 4. The Principal, Purnanand Government Varishtha Upadhyaya Sanskrit School, Churu. ----Appellants-petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur through its Registrar, Mini Secretariat, Near Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Sita Devi W/o late Shri Jainarayan Vyas, resident of Sevakon Ki Gali, Ramgadhia Darwaja, Churu. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/04/2025 The present Special Appeal has been filed by State of Rajasthan and its Officers challenging the order dated 31st October 2023 passed by the writ Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2683/2010. 2. The ground which was urged before the writ Court was that contrary to the statutory provision any direction for grant of pensionary benefits cannot be issued in favour of the Government [2025:RJ-JP:17069-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-361/2024] employee. Reiterating the same ground, Mr. G.S. Gill, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan contends that there are specific requirements under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Appointment and other Service Conditions of Employees of Private Institutions and other Establishments taken over by the Government) Rules, 1977 and the Treasury Rules which do not permit grant of pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner. 3. The writ Court however held that the writ petitioner who had served for about 30 years was entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. 4. The writ Court dealt with the objection raised by the State of Rajasthan in the following manner:- "5. This fact is not in dispute that husband of the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III at Purnanand Government Vashishtha Upadhyaya Sanskrit School, Churu and this institution was taken over by the Government in the year 1989 and thereafter, the services of the husband of the respondent No, 2 were also taken over by the petitioners on 27.06.1992 under the pay scale of Rs. 1250-2050 and the husband of the respondent No. 2 was continued on the said post and his past services were also counted for fixation and other service benefits. Thereafter, he stood retired on 31.01.1996 after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners have failed to satisfy the Court that husband of the respondent No. 2 has worked with the petitioners’ establishment for 3½ years rather the total length of services of the husband of the respondent No. 2 was 30 years. No rule has been brought into notice of this Court which deprives the respondent No.2 to get the pension, gratuity and family pension after the death of his husband. After considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has allowed the [2025:RJ-JP:17069-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-361/2024] appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 which needs no interference of this Court." 5. By now it is well known that pension and gratuity are not bounty rather these benefits are earned by the employee by virtue of meritorious service rendered by him. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India reported in 1983 AIR 130 has held as under:- "28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education 302 US 74 : 83 L Ed 57 a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want. 29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio- economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the [2025:RJ-JP:17069-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-361/2024] most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. 30. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American Jurisprudence 2d, 881)." 6. This is not in dispute that the husband of respondent no.2 was appointed as Teacher Grade III at Purnanand Government Vashishtha Upadhyaya Sanskrit School, Churu and the said school was taken over by the Government in the year 1989. Thus, the services of the husband of the respondent no.2 stood transferred to the State Government on 27.06.1992. Now the effect of taking over of the school would be that the services rendered by the husband of respondent no.2 must be deemed to have been regularized from the date of his initial appointment. 7. In that view of the matter, this Special Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and its Officers cannot be entertained and, accordingly, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.361 of 2024 is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J CHANDAN /62