IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7013/2007. Devi Lal Jandu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4146/2008. Vipin Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4826/2008. Lal Chand Jakhar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7767/2006. Roop Singh Khinchi Vs. State of Rajasthan. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7738/2006. Bhanwarlal Dagar Vs. State of Rajasthan. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8658/2006. Smt. Krishna Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7715/2006. Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7716/2006. Madanlal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7737/2006. Ranpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. Date of Order : : 25.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Sandeep Saxena ] Mr.Rajeer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Inderjeet Singh for the respondent. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Pension) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Rules of 1995”) being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The facts, in brief, of the case are that by last part of Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of 1995 only that period for which the contribution has been made by the employees to Mandi Samiti under the CPF Scheme is required to be taken as qualifying service for grant 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 Om Prakash Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - SB Civil Writ Petition No.2072/2001, decided on 12.5.2004. The said judgment has further been affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal No.496/2004, decided on 27.9.2005. 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 para 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 & 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 so far as petitioners in that case is concerned. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the aforesaid factual position. However, he submits that the State has filed a SLP, but there is no stay. In view of above, the writ petitions are allowed in the terms of the aforesaid judgment. The respondents are directed to compute the qualifying service of the petitioners rendered by them prior to 20.10.1978 for the purpose of pension 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. Difference of pension shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7737/2006. : : Ranpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. : : Date of Order 25.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Sandeep Saxena ] Mr.Rajeer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Inderjeet Singh for the respondent. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Order has been dictated today in open Court. As per order writ petition has been allowed. (See separate order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7013/2007 Devi Lal Jandu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). By Order Court Master