CW 12431/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.12431/2008 Saran Gopal Saxena Versus Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board 2-Civil Writ Petition No.12211/2008 Vinod Kr. Sogani Versus Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board 3-Civil Writ Petition No.12380/2008 Satish Chandra Sharma Versus Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board Date of Order ::: 07/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RC Joshi, for petitioners Mr. RA Katta, for respondent-Board All the three petitions since involve identical controversy, hence are being dispose of by present order. Petitioners were members of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (“Board”) and their service conditions were regulated by Board's Service Bye-laws, 1977 and under its Cl.20(2), age of retirement was to be regulated in terms of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 but after amendment being made by State Government for increasing age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, writ petition (CWP-6354/06) was filed by Govind N.Lata who was retired from service while holding post of Accountant in respondent-Board wherein he assailed his retirement at the age CW 12431/08 //2// of 58 years on the premise that once amendment has been made by State Government in their service Rules, it ipso facto made applicable in terms of Clause 20(2) of Bye Laws, 1977; thereby employee of the Board became entitled to continue upto age of 60 years. This Court vide order dt.18/01/07 (Ex.2) in CWP-6354/07 (Govind N.Lata Vs. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board) finally allowed the petition. However, While the matter was pending before Division Bench in Special Appeal (Writ)-135/2007 (Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Govind N. Lata & Anr), the Board vide amendment dt.22/02/07 fixed compulsory retirement of employees of the Board at 58 years and while deciding Special appeal, ibid, vide judgment dt.01/03/2007 (Ann.4), Division Bench observed ad infra: “The apprehension of the appellant, in our opinion, is unfounded Nevertheless it requires clarifications. Having held that the retirement age of the employees of the Board was sixty years until 22.2.2007, the persons who have already retired on attaining the age of fifty eight years but have not age of sixty years as on that date have to be treated as members of the service. If they did not work during the period, they would not be entitled to salary but they would be entitled to notionally count the period as part of CW 12431/08 //3// service and entitled to retiral benefits. Such of them who remained in active service and performed duties would be also entitled to the salary and other emoluments for the period up to 22.2.2007 or attaining the age of sixty years whichever was earlier.” Counsel for petitioners submits that since petitioners were allowed to continue after date of retirement having completed 58 years; as such they are entitled to get notional benefits for purposes of computation of pensionary benefits in terms of DB decision (supra). Counsel for respondents submits that petitioners being similarly situated are certainly entitled in terms of DB judgment. Consequently writ petitions are allowed and petitioners are also entitled to grant of notional benefits in view of judgment of Division Bench (supra). Respondents are directed to compute benefits accrued in view of DB decision (supra) and ensure compliance within three months. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 12431CW08Spt07(3)AldAgrPns.doc