[2026:RJ-JP:2478] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16977/2011 Smt. Shail Bhardwaj, wife of Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, aged about 61 years, resident of 2/273, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Primary/Elementary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer, Primary/Elementary Education, Jaipur. 4. Director, Pension Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC Ms. Priyansha Barwar for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC for respondent No.4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking direction against the respondents to sanction and release pensionary benefits as well as benefit of GPF and State Insurance etc. along with interest. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Women Supervisor in Social Welfare Department on 12.11.1983 and was subsequently absorbed in Education Department on 22.11.1984. [2026:RJ-JP:2478] (2 of 5) [CW-16977/2011] 3. On account of medical issues, as the petitioner was continuously not keeping good health, she submitted an application for granting her voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Learned counsel submits that the voluntary retirement was sanctioned vide order dated 29.12.2001 w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Pursuant to order dated 29.12.2001, the petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 01.01.2002. However, for no justified reasons benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits including the amount payable under the head of GPF and State Insurance was not sanctioned and released to the petitioner; and an unfounded objection was raised that prior to grant of voluntary retirement, the petitioner did not complete the qualifying service prescribed for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits. Learned counsel submits that during service, on account of medical reasons the petitioner applied for leaves from time to time and such leaves were also sanctioned by the respondents, and therefore, leaves sanctioned by the respondent-Government deserves to be calculated towards the qualifying service. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise, it was legal and bounden duty of the authority sanctioning voluntary retirement to ascertain as to whether an incumbent has completed period of qualifying service for the purpose of pension or not, and only thereafter voluntary retirement is granted. He submits that as per Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, voluntary retirement can be granted only to those employees who have rendered qualifying services for pension and on grant of voluntary [2026:RJ-JP:2478] (3 of 5) [CW-16977/2011] retirement, he/she becomes legally entitled for pension and other benefits. 5. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, as regards benefits under the head of GPF and State Insurance are concerned, they have been paid to the petitioner but the other benefits that is pension gratuity etc. has not been granted to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition submitted that for the purpose of showing entitlement for pension gratuity and other benefits, the employee is required to show that she has rendered qualifying services under the Rules so as to make her entitled for pension. In the instant case, the petitioner remained on leave from 13.09.1993 to 18.05.1998 and 1.07.1998 to 19.02.1999 for which extra ordinary leave was granted to the petitioner and such leave cannot be counted towards the qualifying service. Hence, under these circumstances, where the petitioner failed to fulfil the basic requirement of completing qualifying services, her claim for pension and gratuity is totally contrary to the scheme of Rules of 1996 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that no misrepresentation or fraud was committed by the petitioner for getting her voluntary retirement sanctioned and order dated 29.12.2001 was issued by the competent authorities [2026:RJ-JP:2478] (4 of 5) [CW-16977/2011] referring the provisions of the Rules under which voluntary retirement was granted to the petitioner. 9. After granting voluntary retirement, raising objections with regard to not completing the necessary qualifying period required for pension, is totally inconceivable and unfounded. It was the duty of the sanctioning authority to firstly verify as to whether the petitioner has rendered qualifying services for the purpose of pension or not and only thereafter, the order of voluntary retirement could have been sanctioned to the petitioner. 10. Once the order has been passed, and thereafter, the petitioner has been relieved from services, at the later stage, when the petitioner demanded for pension, gratuity and other benefits admissible under the Rules, by raising such unsubstantiated objections, she could not have been deprived of her legitimate rights. 11. It is not disputed that the period on alleged absence has been duly sanctioned by the respondents by granting extra ordinary leave on the basis of medical certificates and even if, it was without pay and allowances, even then in the light of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1996, such leave period can be counted towards the qualifying service. 12. It is also not disputed that in case, the leave sanctioned on medical grounds/extra ordinary leaves to the petitioner are taken into consideration towards total length of service then in that case, petitioner would fulfil the criteria of qualifying service. 13. Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Jaya Bhattacharya Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.8850-8852/2024) decided on [2026:RJ-JP:2478] (5 of 5) [CW-16977/2011] 25.02.2025 in support of her contention that once period of absence has been declared as period of extra ordinary leave, the said period cannot be treated as break in service. 14. It is also settled that pension is not a bounty and is rather legitimate right of Government employee. Retired person cannot be deprived of his right to get pension and other benefits, meant for his survival, by raising hyper technical and baseless grounds. 15. In the instant case, after analysis of the facts placed before this Court, it is sufficient to observe that the objections raised by the respondents are self contradictory to their own action of sanctioning voluntary retirement at the one hand and thereafter, denying her benefits of pension for the reasons, which are totally contrary to the scheme of Rules of 1996. Since, absence period has been regularized by granting leaves on medical grounds/extra ordinary leave, therefore, while directing for counting all such period towards qualifying service, the respondents are directed to sanction and grant pension, gratuity and other retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and it is also held that the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% in the light of provisions of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, as the delay in sanctioning and releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner is solely attributable to the respondents. 16. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /91