SBCWRW122/2009 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Review Petition No.122/2009 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3068/2007 {Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others} Date of Order ::: 22.01.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri R.K. Mathur with Shri Ajay Tantia, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- The petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated 23.03.2009 of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3068/2007, stating therein that the fact with regard to the additional prayer made in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner be given weightage of five years of service for qualifying service in view of Rule 8(3) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (Mandi Samiti Employee Services) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules of 1975'), was not considered by the Court while deciding the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment, of which SBCWRW122/2009 // 2 // review is sought, I find that the writ petition was allowed in terms of the earlier judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – RLR 2004 (3) 668, wherein Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Pension) Rules, 1995, which provided that only such period wherefor an employee contributed towards CPF scheme shall be considered as part of his qualifying service for grant of pension, was held discriminatory and ultra vires of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.496/2004, decided on 27.09.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on that judgment and on that line the writ petition was allowed. In the first phase, the argument, which is now being advanced, was not raised and the second prayer in the writ petition, which is being pressed now, was not pressed. Secondly, as stated by the petitioner in the review petition, the amendment in the Rules of 1995 by way of insertion of Rule 8(3) therein, was made effective from 22.12.2001, whereas the petitioner stood voluntarily retired on SBCWRW122/2009 // 3 // 31.03.2000. Therefore, in any case, he could not be granted any benefit as prayed. I do not find any merit in this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//