[2026:RJ-JP:4443] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27008/2018 Ramswroop Saini Son Of Shri Dhanmat Saini, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Kalya Ka Kuwa, Near Neelam School, Tuleda Road, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni Dr. Nitin Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC with Mr. Subham Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- “i. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, commutation etc. to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2018 and objections from giving retiral benefits to the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 12.9.2018 may kindly be waived and quashed and set asided with all consequential benefits. ii. Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case [2026:RJ-JP:4443] (2 of 5) [CW-27008/2018] deems just and proper be passed in favour of humble petitioner.” iii. Cost of the writ petition be quantified in favour of petitioner.” 2. While considering the writ petition on 27.01.2026, the Court has directed the counsel for the respondents to ensure that deponent along with along with Officer-in-charge shall remain personally present before this Court so as to explain the anomaly as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In compliance of the order dated 27.01.2026, Mr. Vivek Vijay, Accounts Officer, Pension Department and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mehta, District Education Officer, HQ Alwar are personally present before this Court. 4. Heard the officers present before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred PPO No.1149603(R) of Shri Radha Krishna Meena and PPO No.1191698(R) of Shri Dulli Chand Sharma and submits that identical placed persons or junior to the petitioner were given full benefit of pension by the Department, but in case of the present petitioner, same is missing. He further submits that Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'the Pension Rules of 1996') provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits and the petitioner is entitled for interest. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents admitted the PPOs issued in favour of Shri Radha Krishna Meena and Shri Dulii Chand Sharma and further submits that they will examine the case of petitioner vis-a-vis persons as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and if the petitioner is entitled [2026:RJ-JP:4443] (3 of 5) [CW-27008/2018] for the same benefit, then same shall be granted to the petitioner. He further submits that there is no delay on part of the respondents, so the petitioner is not entitled for interest. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The petitioner was appointed on post of teacher Grade-III on 29.11.1980, and his services were regularized vide order dated 13.11.1988. After 15 years of service, the services of petitioner were terminated vide order dated 03.05.1994 as the STC qualification with the petitioner was not treated equivalent to the BSTC. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the termination order and on 01.06.1994, the writ petition was decided along with a bench of 270 petitions wherein lead case was Keshar Lal Kumawat reported in 1994 (2) WLC 650, and certain directions were passed. 9. Ultimately, the State Government was directed to train such candidates within a maximum period of three years as directed in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (Civil Appeal No.7031/1993) by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 08.07.1994. The petitioner was sent to undergo the bridge course vide order dated 21.11.1994 and 17.12.1994 and directed to attend regular classes with effect from 02.01.1995. The petitioner was again and again directed to undergo bridge course on multiple occasions, but due to non-start of training, the petitioner could not undertake the bridge course. Thereafter, due to order dated 27.07.1995 and 12.04.2002, passed by the Finance Department, the petitioner was granted all benefits of fixation, etc., including selection scale. [2026:RJ-JP:4443] (4 of 5) [CW-27008/2018] The order by which the benefits were granted to the petitioner, was later on withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2018. The Pension Department has raised objections and the petitioner was forced to file current writ petition. 10. Having considered the fact that a circular was issued by Finance Department on 12.04.2002, the petitioner was granted not only the scale but also other benefits, with similarly placed persons. The circular dated 27.07.1995 and 12.04.2002 were later on withdrawn on 08.04.2003. The withdrawal is a prospective act and the persons, who already benefited, are entitled to continue with the benefit, which they availed. Two cases as referred herein above, firstly of Shri Radha Kishan Meena and another Shri Dulii Chand Sharma, as mentioned by the petitioner, are identically placed and their pension case has been approved. Even otherwise also, if a benefit has been granted by a Government decision and same has not been challenged, but the circular under which the benefit has been granted is subsequently been withdrawn, means the persons to whom such benefit has been granted in view of circular is a one-time measure to resolve issue and any subsequent withdrawal of circular does not automatically take away the benefit. The benefits granted to the petitioner were not taken back till his superannuation. Thus, the objection raised by the Pension department is contrary to settled norms. The Pension Department has no right or authority to raise objection when benefits were granted by way of Government decision. 11. If identically placed persons were considered and their pension case has been approved but an objection has been raised [2026:RJ-JP:4443] (5 of 5) [CW-27008/2018] in case of present petitioner, then it is fault of the pension department. The Administrative department has not passed any order against the petitioner for withdrawal of benefit even after withdrawal of circular. Thus, the case of petitioner is required to be re-examined in light of prospective withdrawal of circular/ notification. 12. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 12.09.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-examine the case of petitioner in light of the observation made by this court and if Shri Radha Krishna Meena and Shri Dulii Chand Sharma, identically placed persons, who were granted retiral benefits and then the same benefit to be granted to the petitioner, irrespective of any objection raised by the Pension Department. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits, but the same was withheld due to any reason, then the petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum as provided under Rule 89 of the Pension Rules of 1996. 13. The entire exercise of examination of pension case of petitioner has to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 14. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/52