[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1104/2008 RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNJAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. Date: 09.09.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. **** The main challenge in this writ petition is that arbitrarily the respondents have not taken into consideration the entire length of service of the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pension as the petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.C. in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in the year 1967 and after attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the post of Assistant Secretary. Prior to year 1975 there was no rule governing the service conditions of the petitioner but by way of circulars the rules governing State Government employees were made applicable upon the employees of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It is further submitted that the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets (Market Committee Employee) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975') came into force on 05.02.1976. The Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme for Krishi Upaj Mandi employees was introduced on 20.10.1978 and [2] accordingly deductions were made towards the Provident Fund. Further the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Service (Pension) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules of 1995') were introduced on 21.03.1995. Although all the benefits which were made admissible to the State Government employees were also extended to the employees of the Mandi Samiti but for determination of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension in terms of Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of 1995, only the period for which the contribution which has been made by the employees of the Mandi Samiti under the CPF Scheme has alone being taken into consideration to determine the pension. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar set of writ petitions i.e S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8336/2004- Kedar Nath & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., along with 6 other connected writ petitions, have been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2007, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has considered Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1995 which provides that 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 co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the judgment dated 12.05.2004 [3] rendered by this Court in the case of Om Prakash Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2072/2001), which was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 27.09.2005 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 496/2004. The said Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1995 has been declared ultra vires of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution by the Single Bench in the case of Om Prakash Bansal (supra). Thus, the co-ordinate Bench having considered the ratio decided in the case of Om Prakash Bansal (supra) which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, allowed the writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Om Prakash Bansal (supra) and directed the respondents 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 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. In view of the ratio decided by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kedar Nath & Anr. (supra), the present writ petition also stands allowed and the respondents are directed to [4] compute the qualifying service of the petitioner rendered by him prior to 20.10.1978 and difference of pension shall be paid to the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to issue revised PPO order counting the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment for the purpose of pension. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/ (Hearing Item No.5)