S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7084/2008 Ami Lal Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of order : 20.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Sandeep Saxena for petitioner. Mr. L.N.Boss Additional Government Counsel for State. Both the counsels submit that the controversy in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2007 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8336/2004 and other connected cases titled as Kedar Nath & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. regarding Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Pension Rules) 1995 which has been declared ultra vires by this Court in Om Prakash Bansal case which has been referred in Kedar Nath & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant portion of the judgment of the case of Kedar Nath & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is as follows :- “The facts in brief, of the case are that by last part of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1995 only the period for which the contribution has been made by the employees to Mandi Samiti under the CPF Scheme has alone to be taken into consideration for determination of pension. The said CPF Scheme was introduced on 20.10.1978 and as a result of which, their past services have not been taken into consideration, for the purpose of pension, which are more than 7 years. Counsel for the petitioners relied on - 2 - Om Prakash Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2072/2001, decided on 12.5.2004. The said order has further been affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal No.496/2004, decided on 27.09.2005. The said Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1995 has been declared ultra vires of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution by the Single Bench in Om Prakash Bansal's case. The relevant part 7 which is as follows :- “7. It is evident that even a temporary employee is entitled to get pension pursuant to the aforequoted Rule. Undeniably Rule 10.2 of 1995 rules was framed ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 179 of RSR. The artificial distinction created by State of Rajasthan is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise the contribution made towards CPF by the respondent does not make any distinction for the reason that as per the scheme whatever contribution was made has to be refunded back to the employer after making deduction from the employees contribution. The employer's contribution has to be transferred towards pension fund.” Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said judgment has been implemented by the respondents counting their entire length of service for the purpose of pension.” In view of the above, the respondents are directed to compute the qualifying service of the petitioners rendered by them prior to 20.10.1978 and difference of pension shall be paid to the petitioners within three months - 3- from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further appropriate orders be passed revising the pension by counting their services from the date of their initial appointment as per aforesaid direction for the purpose of pension. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 24