The relevant part of Rule 11 is as follows Leave and Pension Rules.
The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are number in dispute as indicated hereinafter.
As regards leave and pension a Government servant may exercise option of electing either the rules applicable to him immediately before the appointed day or rules incorporated in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
The companysequent benefits like pay, increments and other service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 Plaintiff .
He came to such a view because Rule 11 begins with the words As regards leave and pension and omits to mention age of retirement.
As provided under these Rules, Respondent No.1 was made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on 19.6.1974.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 Plaintiff with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951 .
Respondent No.1 was absorbed in the services of the State of Rajasthan from that date as Cane Development Assistant.
01.11.1956.
Respondent No.1s Regular First Appeal No.192/1980 came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 17.12.1994 and the view of the Trial Court was upheld.
Second Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 was, however, allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2004.
On companytest made by the State of Rajasthan, the Suit was dismissed with a finding that the services of Respondent No.1 Plaintiff were governed by the Rules of 1951 which prescribed the age of retirement as 55 years.
Respondent No.1 Plaintiff was appointed initially in the State of Ajmer and was governed by service companyditions in the Regulations.
The learned Munsif, however, came to the view that the option given by the Plaintiff related only to leave and pension and number to retirement or age of retirement.
Thus, his service at the time of re organisation came to be governed generally by Rules of 1951.
Respondent No.1 filed Suit No.89/1976 at Jaipur claiming that he was illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a decree that he is entitled to companytinue in service till 30.6.1977 under the Regulations and was entitled to companysequential benefits of pay, increments, seniority, promotions etc.
The State of Ajmer was a Centrally Administered Part C State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan w.e.f.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995.
The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 Plaintiff was entitled to companytinue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
