Jaipur: Former higher judicial officer Matadeen Garg, 81, who had secured the first rank in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service examination, has won a decades-long legal battle over his pension, with the Rajasthan High Court directing authorities to count his service from Dec 31, 1986, and release his pension and other retiral benefits along with arrears and 9% annual interest.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma, in its judgment on Sept 5, allowed Garg’s petition and set aside the March 14, 2019, order of the Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court, denying him pension.Garg’s legal battle dates back to his appointment. Despite securing the first rank on the merit list, he was not initially issued an appointment order.The matter reached the Supreme Court, which on July 12, 1991, directed that he be given a posting within four weeks and held that his seniority would be determined according to his original merit ranking. Despite the direction, Garg was allowed to join only on Feb 25, 1994. He retired as district judge on March 31, 1999.“His retirement benefits subsequently triggered another round of litigation. On July 22, 2003, the Supreme Court directed the High Court and the state govt to release his retirement benefits expeditiously, preferably within three months,” his counsel Saugath Roy said.Roy argued that the pension dispute continued for years, with authorities calculating Garg’s qualifying service from Aug 22, 1991, at 7 years, 7 months and 10 days — below the 10-year threshold under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, he argued.He argued that Garg’s service should have been notionally counted from Dec 31, 1986, when candidates from his original merit list were appointed.The HC agreed, holding that the delay in Garg’s joining was administrative and he could not be penalised for the authorities’ delay.The bench also rejected the authorities’ contention that govt dues, including accommodation-related dues, justified withholding his pension. It said such dues could be recovered under the pension rules but could not be a ground to deny pension.The court observed that Garg had been “running from pillar to post for several years” and held that his pension had been wrongly denied.The court directed authorities to pay his pension and retiral arrears within 15 days, along with 9% interest. It further ordered that if the payment was delayed beyond the stipulated period, an additional 12% interest would be payable and recovered from the officer concerned.
