1. The brief facts of the case are as under: -

2. The petitioner was appointed as Computer (Sahaganak) in the office of Deputy Director, Regional Census Office, Jodhpur and in the year 1982, he was transferred to the office of District Rural Development Agency, Jodhpur as L.D.C. Vide order dated 13.02.1987, the petitioner was transferred to the Commercial Taxes Department and his services were assigned to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur. The petitioner joined the said office on 28.02.1987 and continued to serve there. He was allowed regular grade increments, pay fixation etc., by the said department. His services were confirmed vide order dated 30.12.1995 and his name also found place in the seniority list of L.D.C. issued on 23.09.2002. Vide order dated 01.09.2005, the petitioner was sought to be relieved from the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur against which the present writ petition has been preferred. The impugned order dated 01.09.2005 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2005 and the same was confirmed on 02.02.2006.

3. The petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2018 during the pendency of the present writ petition but the pension as well as retiral benefits have not been finalized by the respondent Department.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in question rests decided by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhanwar Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) WLC 305.

5. In Bhanwar Singh Bhati’s case (supra) the Division Bench observed and held as under: -

“18. It is apparent that the petitioner having already joined the Education Department in terms of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in 1995 and he has been already integrated into the Education service by giving seniority, regular pay scale and the merit increment, it was not open for the respondents to deny him all privileges without affording him an opportunity of hearing by taking impugned decision in their closed rooms as it was not merely a policy decision, which was effecting the petitioner but was an administrative action directly affecting the petitioner adversely.

19. Apart from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the act of the respondents in dealing with the petitioner has been less than fair just and reasonable. Obviously, no fault, default or lapses on his part can be found and notwithstanding finding that his services are otherwise very satisfactory, to put him on the road in search of a destination as Education Department as well as the parent department, both have disowned him is an act which suffers from gross arbitrariness.

20. Apparently, any Department of the State which are subordinate to the State are as much required to act with fairness and bereft of any arbitrariness and unreasonableness. If there is any dispute between the two Departments as to where the petitioner should serve as a permanent employee, it has to be resolved Iy higher authorities of the State, but not by one department unilaterally by asking the petitioner, who is working with them for 7 years to return back to his parent house without there being any methodology under which the Education Department can compel parent department to take back the petitioner on duty. This order would if at all could have passed by the State Government. In that event, the petitioner would not have suffered any consequences as it would bind both the departments. Such unilateral decision on the Education department cannot be countenanced.

21. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order Annexure. 12 and direct the Education Department to allow the petitioner to continue with it. No order as to costs.”

6. In the present case also it is clear on record that the petitioner was transferred to the Commercial Taxes Department and he completed almost a tenure of 18 years with the said department. The regular pay fixation, confirmation and increments were also granted to him by the said department. Therefore, the ratio as laid down in Bhanwar Singh Bhati’s case (supra) directly applies to the present matter also.

7. Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the legal position.

8. In view of the ratio as laid down in Bhanwar Singh Bhati’s case (supra) the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2005 (Annexure P-12) is quashed and set aside. The respondent Commercial Taxes Department is directed to release the pension and all other retiral benefits to the petitioner treating him to be a permanent employee of the department. The said benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from receipt of a copy of this order.