Pension Calculation Is Governed By Rules In Force When Employee Joined Service; Can't Retrospectively Apply New Rules: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench: A Division Bench of Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Ashutosh Kumar upheld a single-judge decision that allowed a government employee to include his territorial army service in pension calculations. The Court ruled that pension rules introduced in 1996 could not retrospectively be applied to those who joined under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Background Jagdish Prasad Chodhary served in the territorial army before joining Rajasthan's civil services in 1983. He retired in 2011. After retirement, he sought to include his territorial army service as part of his pensionable tenure. The State denied his request; it explained that Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, required employees to opt for inclusion of past service within three months of joining. Without having done this, Chodhary could not claim his territorial army services for pension calculations. Chodhary challenged this decision, arguing that the 1996 rules could not apply to him as they were enacted long after he began his service. He submitted that he was governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and these rules allowed for the inclusion of past military service. A single-judge bench agreed and ruled in his favor. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal against this judgement. Arguments The State contended that Rule 19 of the 1996 Pension Rules required employees to exercise the option to include past service within three months of joining. It argued that Chodhary had failed to do so and raised this entire issue only after his retirement. They also argued that there were discrepancies in the duration of army service as claimed by Chodhary and the duration mentioned in official records. However, Chodhary argued that the rules in force when he joined—the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951—were applicable to his case. Under Rule 175 of those rules, past military service could be included for pension purposes if the employee refunded any gratuity or bonus received upon discharge. He emphasized that the rule change in 1996 could not retrospectively extinguish his rights. Furthermore, he argued that the delay in raising the matter was because he became aware of the issue only after retirement. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court held that the rules applicable at the time of joining—the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951—governed Chodhary's case. Under Rule 175 of the old rules, military service could be included for pension purposes if certain conditions were met - such as the refund of any gratuity or bonus received upon discharge. The court noted that since Chodhary had not received any such payments upon discharge, he was eligible to include his army service in pension calculations. Secondly, the court rejected the State's reliance on Rule 19 of the 1996 Pension Rules. It clarified that the rule did not apply to employees who had joined service before the enactment of the 1996 rules. It ruled against the retrospective application of the new rules to employees governed by the 1951 rules. Thirdly, the court addressed the issue of delay. It found that Chodhary's claim arose after retirement because he discovered only then that his territorial army service had been excluded. The court determined that this delay was reasonable, as the State itself failed to communicate discrepancies in his pension calculations earlier. Lastly, the court considered the issue of discrepancies in the duration of army service. It found inconsistencies between Chodhary's claim and official records. Accordingly, the court only allowed the uncontested period of 9 years and 7 months to be included as pensionable service. Thus, the court directed the State to amend his Pension Payment Order and include this period in the calculations. It dismissed the appeal. Decided on: 11-12-2024Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 424 Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:50932-DB, The State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad Chodhary Counsel For Appellants: Mr. Kartikey Sharma, on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Additional Advocate General Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Aslam Khan Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Pension Calculation Is Governed By Rules In Force When Employee Joined Service; Can't Retrospectively Apply New Rules: Rajasthan HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags