1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1844/2004. : : Darbari Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 23.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Ajay Gupta for the petitioners. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners namely; Darbari Lal and Sewa Singh with the prayer that the respondents be directed to compute their terminal/retiral benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by them in Bankhara Beas Management Board at Rs.14,100/- in the case of petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,350/- in the case of petitioner No.2 respectively and accordingly re-calculate their pension and other retiral benefits. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted for perusal of the Court copy of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Bhagwan Dutt Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2449/2001 decided on 2.9.2004 and has argued that the case of the 2 petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in which also the petitioner was working on deputation with Bhakra Beas Management Board while his lien was retained with the respondents. Reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in P.C.Gandhi Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition No.620/1993 decided on 4.5.1999, which has been relied and referred to in Bhagwan Dutt Gaur (supra). Shri B.L.Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the purview of Rule 250 (c) (2) of Rajasthan Services Rules and for that matter, under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, therefore, the Government has preferred appeal in the case of Bhagwan Dutt Gaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoindered and submitted that no stay order has been passed by Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal. Learned counsel submitted copy of the order dated 18.9.2000 to show that compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in P.C.Gandhi has been made. In view of the above, there is no distinction between the case of the petitioners and aforesaid two cases. 3 In the result, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid two cases with direction to the respondents to grant same benefits to the petitioners as given in the aforesaid two cases. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.19.