1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 804/1994 Satya Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 09.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr M.S. Singhvi, for the petitioner/s. Mrs Pratistha Dave, for the respondents. Mr Khet Singh, ... An appointment was given to the petitioner as Revenue Officer Gr.II by the Director, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur under an order dated 8.9.1978. The appointment aforesaid was on temporary basis as per Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963. The appointment of the petitioner was extended time to time by various orders and the same was ultimately discontinued under an order dated 12.12.1986. A challenge to the same was given by him by way of filing a writ petition (SBCivil Writ Petition No.3951/1988). The writ petition aforesaid came to be accepted under an order dated 19.9.1997 that resulted into reinstatement of the petitioner as Revenue Officer Gr.II. / The petitioner as such is to be treated as Revenue Officer Gr.II since his appointment vide order dated 8.9.1978. During pendency of the first writ petition filed by the petitioner an amendment was introduced with Rajasthan Municipal Services Rules, 1963 by addition of proviso (vi) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963 in the terms, “that the name of Executive Officers Class IV and Revenue 2 Officer Gr.II appointed vide Rule 27 temporarily or in officiating capacity upto 31.3.79 shall be referred to the Commission to adjudge their suitability according to the qualifications etc., prescribed at the time of their appointments and their appointments shall be terminated immediately in case they are not adjudged suitably.” The petitioner and number of other persons alike assailed validity of the newly added proviso on various counts and the same was examined by this Court in SBCivil Wrti Petition NO. 3320/1992 (Shanker Rathore Vs. State & Anr.) decided on 27.3.2006. Hon'ble Court while dismissing the challenge to validity of the proviso aforesaid directed the respondents for taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioners in those cases for computing their terminal benefits payable at the time of retirement. In view of the judgment of this Court in Shanker Rathore (supra), the challenge given by the petitioner to proviso (vi) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963 does not survive, however, he is also entitled for getting his services to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing terminal benefits for which he was entitled at the time of his retirement from service. Beside that the petitioner is also entitled to receive all benefits flowing as a consequent to proviso (vi) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal ' 3